TY - CPAPER T1 - The 2008 Transportation Design Challenge for Connecticut High School and Middle School Students T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41812588; 5037081 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Moffett, James Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, Connecticut KW - Transportation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41812588?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=The+2008+Transportation+Design+Challenge+for+Connecticut+High+School+and+Middle+School+Students&rft.au=Moffett%2C+James&rft.aulast=Moffett&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Operations and Emergency Response T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41804688; 5036781 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Ekern, David Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Emergency preparedness KW - Emergencies KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41804688?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Operations+and+Emergency+Response&rft.au=Ekern%2C+David&rft.aulast=Ekern&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Impact of Implementation of New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority's MetroCard on Ridership and Revenue of Westchester County Bee-Line Bus System T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41804608; 5038333 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Sutter, Charles AU - Ehrlich, Theodore AU - Stiller, Richard Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, New York KW - Transportation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41804608?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Impact+of+Implementation+of+New+York+Metropolitan+Transportation+Authority%27s+MetroCard+on+Ridership+and+Revenue+of+Westchester+County+Bee-Line+Bus+System&rft.au=Sutter%2C+Charles%3BEhrlich%2C+Theodore%3BStiller%2C+Richard&rft.aulast=Sutter&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Caltrans Cultural Resources Database and Geographic Information System Application: Managing Sensitive Resources in the State Right-of-Way T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41802795; 5036957 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Montero, Carie Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Remote sensing KW - Geographic information systems KW - Cultural resources KW - Databases KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41802795?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Caltrans+Cultural+Resources+Database+and+Geographic+Information+System+Application%3A+Managing+Sensitive+Resources+in+the+State+Right-of-Way&rft.au=Montero%2C+Carie&rft.aulast=Montero&rft.aufirst=Carie&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Meaningful Public Outreach and Involvement in K. K. Kottala, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, India T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41801273; 5037861 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Cunningham, Kevin Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - India, Andhra Pradesh KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41801273?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Meaningful+Public+Outreach+and+Involvement+in+K.+K.+Kottala%2C+Kurnool+District%2C+Andhra+Pradesh%2C+India&rft.au=Cunningham%2C+Kevin&rft.aulast=Cunningham&rft.aufirst=Kevin&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Mitigation of Delays at International Border Crossings T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41799592; 5039422 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Krueger, Gregory Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Mitigation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41799592?accountid=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:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - High-Capacity Piles at the Stony Creek Bridge Project T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41799255; 5036417 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Liebich, Brian Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41799255?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=High-Capacity+Piles+at+the+Stony+Creek+Bridge+Project&rft.au=Liebich%2C+Brian&rft.aulast=Liebich&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Effective Cultural Resource Data Management: Practical Considerations T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41796442; 5036961 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Opperman, Antony Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Cultural resources KW - Data management KW - Data processing KW - Resource management KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41796442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Health+%26+Safety+Science+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Stoliarov%2C+SI%3BLyon%2C+R+E&rft.aulast=Stoliarov&rft.aufirst=SI&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=32&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Thermo-Kinetic+Model+of+Burning&rft.title=Thermo-Kinetic+Model+of+Burning&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - State Department of Transportation Approaches to Climate Change T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41795897; 5036964 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Albright, R Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Climatic changes KW - Transportation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41795897?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=State+Department+of+Transportation+Approaches+to+Climate+Change&rft.au=Albright%2C+R&rft.aulast=Albright&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Paving the Road to Successful Evacuations: Texas Experience T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41793604; 5037174 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Garza, Toribio Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, Texas KW - Evacuation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41793604?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Paving+the+Road+to+Successful+Evacuations%3A+Texas+Experience&rft.au=Garza%2C+Toribio&rft.aulast=Garza&rft.aufirst=Toribio&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=616&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Public+Administration&rft.issn=01900692&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F01900690701640960 L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Overview and Policy Issues to Aid Older Road Users T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41793423; 5037178 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Hutton, Pamela Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Reviews KW - Policies KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41793423?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Overview+and+Policy+Issues+to+Aid+Older+Road+Users&rft.au=Hutton%2C+Pamela&rft.aulast=Hutton&rft.aufirst=Pamela&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Mobility and Environmental Responsibility: Caltrans Projects and Resource Stewardship in a Digital Age--GIS, Database, and Management Functions T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41792949; 5037867 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Montero, Carie AU - Darcangelo, Jennifer Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Responsibility KW - Mobility KW - Databases KW - Resource management KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41792949?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Mobility+and+Environmental+Responsibility%3A+Caltrans+Projects+and+Resource+Stewardship+in+a+Digital+Age--GIS%2C+Database%2C+and+Management+Functions&rft.au=Montero%2C+Carie%3BDarcangelo%2C+Jennifer&rft.aulast=Montero&rft.aufirst=Carie&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Impact on Highway Safety T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41790703; 5037987 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Ucles, Jose Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Highways KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41790703?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Impact+on+Highway+Safety&rft.au=Ucles%2C+Jose&rft.aulast=Ucles&rft.aufirst=Jose&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - VDOT Transportation Management Center and ITS Program T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41789873; 5039014 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Sheehan, Robert Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Transportation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41789873?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=VDOT+Transportation+Management+Center+and+ITS+Program&rft.au=Sheehan%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Sheehan&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Charlotte, North Carolina, Regional Fast Lanes Study T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41788804; 5036686 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Gibbs, Timothy Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, North Carolina KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41788804?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Charlotte%2C+North+Carolina%2C+Regional+Fast+Lanes+Study&rft.au=Gibbs%2C+Timothy&rft.aulast=Gibbs&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - State DOT Perspective T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41788801; 5037214 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Fawver, Gary Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41788801?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=State+DOT+Perspective&rft.au=Fawver%2C+Gary&rft.aulast=Fawver&rft.aufirst=Gary&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Implementation of Findings to Aid Older Road Users T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41788716; 5037182 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Smith, Tom Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41788716?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Implementation+of+Findings+to+Aid+Older+Road+Users&rft.au=Smith%2C+Tom&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=Tom&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - How will we do it? -- Managing and Shepherding Strategic Engineering T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41788630; 5037164 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Wainaina, Njoroge Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41788630?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=How+will+we+do+it%3F+--+Managing+and+Shepherding+Strategic+Engineering&rft.au=Wainaina%2C+Njoroge&rft.aulast=Wainaina&rft.aufirst=Njoroge&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Performance Management Needs T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41788163; 5036817 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Rahn, Pete Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41788163?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Performance+Management+Needs&rft.au=Rahn%2C+Pete&rft.aulast=Rahn&rft.aufirst=Pete&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Asset Management Needs T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41786327; 5036819 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Bridges, Michael Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41786327?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Asset+Management+Needs&rft.au=Bridges%2C+Michael&rft.aulast=Bridges&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Software Development T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41785314; 5039013 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Krammes, Raymond Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Computer programs KW - Software KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41785314?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Software+Development&rft.au=Krammes%2C+Raymond&rft.aulast=Krammes&rft.aufirst=Raymond&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - True Cost of Bridge Aesthetics in Today's Standardized Department of Transportation Environment T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41784256; 5036462 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Van Landuyt, Dean Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Standards KW - Transportation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41784256?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=True+Cost+of+Bridge+Aesthetics+in+Today%27s+Standardized+Department+of+Transportation+Environment&rft.au=Van+Landuyt%2C+Dean&rft.aulast=Van+Landuyt&rft.aufirst=Dean&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Inspection, Operation, and Rehabilitation Strategies for PennDOT Tunnels T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41782860; 5036111 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Ruzzi, Louis AU - Zang, Jason Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Inspection KW - Tunnels KW - Rehabilitation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41782860?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Inspection%2C+Operation%2C+and+Rehabilitation+Strategies+for+PennDOT+Tunnels&rft.au=Ruzzi%2C+Louis%3BZang%2C+Jason&rft.aulast=Ruzzi&rft.aufirst=Louis&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - SR-167 HOT Lane Project in Washington State T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41782580; 5036677 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Rubstello, Patty Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, Washington KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41782580?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=SR-167+HOT+Lane+Project+in+Washington+State&rft.au=Rubstello%2C+Patty&rft.aulast=Rubstello&rft.aufirst=Patty&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Performance of Pavement Aggregate Base Courses in North Carolina T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41782034; 5036551 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Corley-Lay, Judith AU - Mastin, Jeffery Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, North Carolina KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41782034?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Performance+of+Pavement+Aggregate+Base+Courses+in+North+Carolina&rft.au=Corley-Lay%2C+Judith%3BMastin%2C+Jeffery&rft.aulast=Corley-Lay&rft.aufirst=Judith&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Transportation Funding Partnerships and Innovation T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41779962; 5039091 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Nadeau, Gregory Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Innovations KW - Transportation KW - Financing KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41779962?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Transportation+Funding+Partnerships+and+Innovation&rft.au=Nadeau%2C+Gregory&rft.aulast=Nadeau&rft.aufirst=Gregory&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Arizona's Statewide Transportation Management Center T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41779880; 5039015 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Nodes, Scott Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, Arizona KW - Transportation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41779880?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Arizona%27s+Statewide+Transportation+Management+Center&rft.au=Nodes%2C+Scott&rft.aulast=Nodes&rft.aufirst=Scott&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Environmental Impacts of Congestion Pricing: Synthesis T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41779172; 5038652 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Larson, Kreig Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Pricing KW - Environmental impact KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41779172?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Environmental+Impacts+of+Congestion+Pricing%3A+Synthesis&rft.au=Larson%2C+Kreig&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=Kreig&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Managing Contamination Risks for Public-Private Partnership Design-Build Projects T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41776725; 5039201 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Wallingford, Edward Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Contamination KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41776725?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Managing+Contamination+Risks+for+Public-Private+Partnership+Design-Build+Projects&rft.au=Wallingford%2C+Edward&rft.aulast=Wallingford&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Perspectives on Policies in the United States T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41775260; 5036432 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Compton, Richard Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41775260?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Perspectives+on+Policies+in+the+United+States&rft.au=Compton%2C+Richard&rft.aulast=Compton&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - State Department of Transportation Perspective T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41773987; 5038461 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Mortel, Susan Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Transportation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41773987?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=State+Department+of+Transportation+Perspective&rft.au=Mortel%2C+Susan&rft.aulast=Mortel&rft.aufirst=Susan&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Using the Internet to Promote Defensive Driving Tips for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41770912; 5037568 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Walker, Martin Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Internet KW - Motor vehicles KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41770912?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Using+the+Internet+to+Promote+Defensive+Driving+Tips+for+Commercial+Motor+Vehicle+Drivers&rft.au=Walker%2C+Martin&rft.aulast=Walker&rft.aufirst=Martin&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - In-place Microelectromechanical System Inclinometer Strings: Evaluation of an Evolving Technology T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41763275; 5037694 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Barendse, Matthew AU - Machan, George Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Technology KW - Microelectromechanical systems KW - Slope indicators KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41763275?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=In-place+Microelectromechanical+System+Inclinometer+Strings%3A+Evaluation+of+an+Evolving+Technology&rft.au=Barendse%2C+Matthew%3BMachan%2C+George&rft.aulast=Barendse&rft.aufirst=Matthew&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions Starting with Small "GreenSTEP"s T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41762016; 5036154 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Gregor, Brian Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Greenhouse gases KW - Emissions KW - Climatic changes KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41762016?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Modeling+Greenhouse+Gas+Emissions+Starting+with+Small+%22GreenSTEP%22s&rft.au=Gregor%2C+Brian&rft.aulast=Gregor&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Human Factors Research and Prevention Efforts for Trucking Safety T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41761684; 5038086 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Walker, Martin Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Prevention KW - Human factors KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41761684?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Human+Factors+Research+and+Prevention+Efforts+for+Trucking+Safety&rft.au=Walker%2C+Martin&rft.aulast=Walker&rft.aufirst=Martin&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Pennsylvania's Mobility Plan T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41754902; 5036951 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Wall, Brian Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, Pennsylvania KW - Mobility KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41754902?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Pennsylvania%27s+Mobility+Plan&rft.au=Wall%2C+Brian&rft.aulast=Wall&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Mechanistic-Empirical Modeling in Network-Level Pavement Management T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41754703; 5039363 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Schram, Scott AU - Abdelrahman, Magdy Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41754703?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Mechanistic-Empirical+Modeling+in+Network-Level+Pavement+Management&rft.au=Schram%2C+Scott%3BAbdelrahman%2C+Magdy&rft.aulast=Schram&rft.aufirst=Scott&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Virginia's Approach to Aligning Data Programs T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41753734; 5036319 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Price, Jeff Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA, Virginia KW - Data processing KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41753734?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Virginia%27s+Approach+to+Aligning+Data+Programs&rft.au=Price%2C+Jeff&rft.aulast=Price&rft.aufirst=Jeff&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Key Findings from U.S. Scanning Tour to Europe and Asia T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41746037; 5036507 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Elston, Debra Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Europe KW - USA KW - Asia KW - Tours KW - Scanning KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41746037?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Key+Findings+from+U.S.+Scanning+Tour+to+Europe+and+Asia&rft.au=Elston%2C+Debra&rft.aulast=Elston&rft.aufirst=Debra&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design Axial Design of Driven Pile at Strength Limit State T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41745671; 5036420 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Abu-Hejleh, Naser AU - Dimaggio, Jerry AU - Kramer, William Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41745671?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=AASHTO+Load+and+Resistance+Factor+Design+Axial+Design+of+Driven+Pile+at+Strength+Limit+State&rft.au=Abu-Hejleh%2C+Naser%3BDimaggio%2C+Jerry%3BKramer%2C+William&rft.aulast=Abu-Hejleh&rft.aufirst=Naser&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - National Transportation Recovery Plan T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41745278; 5038395 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Benini, Janet Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Transportation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41745278?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=National+Transportation+Recovery+Plan&rft.au=Benini%2C+Janet&rft.aulast=Benini&rft.aufirst=Janet&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Indirect and Cumulative Effects: Federal Highway Administration Perspective T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41744519; 5038806 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Naber, MaryAnn Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Highways KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41744519?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Indirect+and+Cumulative+Effects%3A+Federal+Highway+Administration+Perspective&rft.au=Naber%2C+MaryAnn&rft.aulast=Naber&rft.aufirst=MaryAnn&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - From Completed Research Project to Promotion and Implementation of New Practices T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41733686; 5036404 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - McVoy, Gary AU - Campbell, Mara AU - Schaftlein, Shari AU - Casey, Patrick Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41733686?accountid=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=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=From+Completed+Research+Project+to+Promotion+and+Implementation+of+New+Practices&rft.au=McVoy%2C+Gary%3BCampbell%2C+Mara%3BSchaftlein%2C+Shari%3BCasey%2C+Patrick&rft.aulast=McVoy&rft.aufirst=Gary&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - An Update on FHWA Road Weather Management Initiatives T2 - 25th Conference on International Interactive Information and Processing Systems for Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology (IIPS 2009) AN - 41726164; 5004990 JF - 25th Conference on International Interactive Information and Processing Systems for Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology (IIPS 2009) AU - Pisano, Paul AU - Stern, A AU - Kennedy, P Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Weather KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41726164?accountid=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=25th+Conference+on+International+Interactive+Information+and+Processing+Systems+for+Meteorology%2C+Oceanography%2C+and+Hydrology+%28IIPS+2009%29&rft.atitle=An+Update+on+FHWA+Road+Weather+Management+Initiatives&rft.au=Pisano%2C+Paul%3BStern%2C+A%3BKennedy%2C+P&rft.aulast=Pisano&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=25th+Conference+on+International+Interactive+Information+and+Processing+Systems+for+Meteorology%2C+Oceanography%2C+and+Hydrology+%28IIPS+2009%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://ams.confex.com/ams/89annual/techprogram/programexpanded_511.htm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT DRUM CONNECTOR ROUTE (I-81 TO FORT DRUM NORTH GATE), TOWNS OF LE RAY AND PAMELIA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - FORT DRUM CONNECTOR ROUTE (I-81 TO FORT DRUM NORTH GATE), TOWNS OF LE RAY AND PAMELIA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825117; 13686-090003_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new arterial/freeway facility to connect Interstate 81 (I-81) to US 11 at the Fort Drum North Gate in the towns of Pamelia and Le Ray, Jefferson County, New York is proposed. The connector facility would be located north of Watertown. The project would provide a four-lane connector from I-81 to Fort Drum Army Base to enhance the strategic viability of the fort. The existing connection between US 11 and Fort Drum follows New York Route 342, which is a two-lane highway, and US 11, which is a four-lane, undivided highway. Depending on the alternative selected, the facility would be either an fully controlled access interstate highway or a combined partially controlled access state and interstate facility. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative NC4) would provide 4.3 miles of four-lane divided highway built to interstate standards on a new Alignment. The new connection at I-81 would be an interchange located approximately 0.75 mile north of Exit 48 (New York 342); the Fort Drum connection would also consist of an interchange. The travel distance along the preferred alternative would be 7.9 miles. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $63 million, and the benefit cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to enhancing the strategic viability of Fort Drum, the project would accommodate current and anticipated traffic volumes and address safety concerns related to design flaws and low-capacity characterizing the existing facilities. The project would enhance the overall economic viability of the businesses and communities along the study corridor. Improved operating efficiency along the new connector would result in a significant decrease in the emission of criterion air pollutants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three residences, 3.94 acres of wetlands, and 76 acres of farmland. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at one sensitive receptor site and 50 receptor sites would experience significant increase in noise levels; one noise barrier has been proposed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0384D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090003, Volume I (Part 1)--291 pages. Volume I (Part 2)--260 pages and maps, January 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-05-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Fort Drum Army Base KW - New York 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/756825117?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+DRUM+CONNECTOR+ROUTE+%28I-81+TO+FORT+DRUM+NORTH+GATE%29%2C+TOWNS+OF+LE+RAY+AND+PAMELIA%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=FORT+DRUM+CONNECTOR+ROUTE+%28I-81+TO+FORT+DRUM+NORTH+GATE%29%2C+TOWNS+OF+LE+RAY+AND+PAMELIA%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT DRUM CONNECTOR ROUTE (I-81 TO FORT DRUM NORTH GATE), TOWNS OF LE RAY AND PAMELIA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - FORT DRUM CONNECTOR ROUTE (I-81 TO FORT DRUM NORTH GATE), TOWNS OF LE RAY AND PAMELIA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825109; 13686-090003_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new arterial/freeway facility to connect Interstate 81 (I-81) to US 11 at the Fort Drum North Gate in the towns of Pamelia and Le Ray, Jefferson County, New York is proposed. The connector facility would be located north of Watertown. The project would provide a four-lane connector from I-81 to Fort Drum Army Base to enhance the strategic viability of the fort. The existing connection between US 11 and Fort Drum follows New York Route 342, which is a two-lane highway, and US 11, which is a four-lane, undivided highway. Depending on the alternative selected, the facility would be either an fully controlled access interstate highway or a combined partially controlled access state and interstate facility. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative NC4) would provide 4.3 miles of four-lane divided highway built to interstate standards on a new Alignment. The new connection at I-81 would be an interchange located approximately 0.75 mile north of Exit 48 (New York 342); the Fort Drum connection would also consist of an interchange. The travel distance along the preferred alternative would be 7.9 miles. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $63 million, and the benefit cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to enhancing the strategic viability of Fort Drum, the project would accommodate current and anticipated traffic volumes and address safety concerns related to design flaws and low-capacity characterizing the existing facilities. The project would enhance the overall economic viability of the businesses and communities along the study corridor. Improved operating efficiency along the new connector would result in a significant decrease in the emission of criterion air pollutants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three residences, 3.94 acres of wetlands, and 76 acres of farmland. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at one sensitive receptor site and 50 receptor sites would experience significant increase in noise levels; one noise barrier has been proposed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0384D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090003, Volume I (Part 1)--291 pages. Volume I (Part 2)--260 pages and maps, January 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-05-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Fort Drum Army Base KW - New York 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/756825109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+DRUM+CONNECTOR+ROUTE+%28I-81+TO+FORT+DRUM+NORTH+GATE%29%2C+TOWNS+OF+LE+RAY+AND+PAMELIA%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=FORT+DRUM+CONNECTOR+ROUTE+%28I-81+TO+FORT+DRUM+NORTH+GATE%29%2C+TOWNS+OF+LE+RAY+AND+PAMELIA%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST CONNECTOR DES MOINES, POLK COUNTY, IOWA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SOUTHEAST CONNECTOR DES MOINES, POLK COUNTY, IOWA. AN - 756824977; 13684-090001_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new arterial roadway that would traverse the southeastern quadrant of Des Moines in Polk County, Iowa is proposed. The urban highway, to e known as the Southeast Connector, would extend from the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway terminus at Southeast 14th Street to the Vandalia Road/US 65 Bypass interchange. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Yellow Alternative, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would follow part of the Southeast Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in a prior study and part of a north-to-South corridor alignment. This alternative would extend eastward from Southeast 14th Street along an alignment mid-way between Scott Avenue and East Market Street. The mid-block alignment would then follow the railroad rights-of-way to the southeast through the Chesterfield Neighborhood before turning east near Pleasant Hill Boulevard. From there, the alignment would proceed a short distance eastward until it reached the eastern termini at US 65. It is noted that Chesterfield is not currently a recognized neighborhood; however, for the purposes of this study, the housing cluster between Southeast 20th Street and Southeast 34 Street from East Market Street to CB&Q Street are referred to as Chesterfield. A new bridge would be built across Four Mile Creek, and a railroad spur would be required. The Blue Alternative would also follow part of the Southeast Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in a prior study and part of a north-to-South corridor alignment. This alternative would also extend eastward from Southeast 14th Street along the Scott Avenue alignment to CB&Q Street, where it would proceed along CB&Q Street eastward past the South side of Sunset Beach Lake. From that point, the Brown Alignment would meet a city-owned rail rights-of-way and follow it southeast through a salvage yard to Vandalia Road, finally running eastward along Vandalia Road to the US 65. The existing bridge over Four Mile Creek would be refurbished and improved. Bypass interchange. Costs of the Yellow and Brown alternatives are estimated at $77.0 million and $62 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would provide a safe, efficient, and direct route from downtown Des Moines to the US 65 outer Beltway on the southeast side of the city. The facility would enhance system connectivity, improving access to communities and businesses along the corridor. System capacity would also be enhanced, supporting projected growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 15 residences ad seven businesses; business relocations would affect 102 to 212 jobs. The taxable value of the land to be placed into public ownership in the city of Pleasant Hill would amount to $2.5 million, or 0.05 percent of the city's tax base. The taxable value of the land to be placed into public ownership in Polk County would amount to $2.7 million, or 0.01 percent of the city's tax base. Traffic-generate noise would exceed federal standards at 10 residences and two businesses. Highway construction would permanently displace5.6 acres of wetlands, and 9,105 cubic yards of fill would be placed in the 100-year floodplain and 11,399 cubic yards in a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers floodway easement Construction workers would encounter 17 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090001, 196 pages and maps, January 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-Iowa-EIS-08-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Iowa 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/756824977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+CONNECTOR+DES+MOINES%2C+POLK+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+CONNECTOR+DES+MOINES%2C+POLK+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Ames, Iowa; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST CONNECTOR DES MOINES, POLK COUNTY, IOWA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SOUTHEAST CONNECTOR DES MOINES, POLK COUNTY, IOWA. AN - 756824867; 13684-090001_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new arterial roadway that would traverse the southeastern quadrant of Des Moines in Polk County, Iowa is proposed. The urban highway, to e known as the Southeast Connector, would extend from the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway terminus at Southeast 14th Street to the Vandalia Road/US 65 Bypass interchange. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Yellow Alternative, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would follow part of the Southeast Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in a prior study and part of a north-to-South corridor alignment. This alternative would extend eastward from Southeast 14th Street along an alignment mid-way between Scott Avenue and East Market Street. The mid-block alignment would then follow the railroad rights-of-way to the southeast through the Chesterfield Neighborhood before turning east near Pleasant Hill Boulevard. From there, the alignment would proceed a short distance eastward until it reached the eastern termini at US 65. It is noted that Chesterfield is not currently a recognized neighborhood; however, for the purposes of this study, the housing cluster between Southeast 20th Street and Southeast 34 Street from East Market Street to CB&Q Street are referred to as Chesterfield. A new bridge would be built across Four Mile Creek, and a railroad spur would be required. The Blue Alternative would also follow part of the Southeast Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in a prior study and part of a north-to-South corridor alignment. This alternative would also extend eastward from Southeast 14th Street along the Scott Avenue alignment to CB&Q Street, where it would proceed along CB&Q Street eastward past the South side of Sunset Beach Lake. From that point, the Brown Alignment would meet a city-owned rail rights-of-way and follow it southeast through a salvage yard to Vandalia Road, finally running eastward along Vandalia Road to the US 65. The existing bridge over Four Mile Creek would be refurbished and improved. Bypass interchange. Costs of the Yellow and Brown alternatives are estimated at $77.0 million and $62 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would provide a safe, efficient, and direct route from downtown Des Moines to the US 65 outer Beltway on the southeast side of the city. The facility would enhance system connectivity, improving access to communities and businesses along the corridor. System capacity would also be enhanced, supporting projected growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 15 residences ad seven businesses; business relocations would affect 102 to 212 jobs. The taxable value of the land to be placed into public ownership in the city of Pleasant Hill would amount to $2.5 million, or 0.05 percent of the city's tax base. The taxable value of the land to be placed into public ownership in Polk County would amount to $2.7 million, or 0.01 percent of the city's tax base. Traffic-generate noise would exceed federal standards at 10 residences and two businesses. Highway construction would permanently displace5.6 acres of wetlands, and 9,105 cubic yards of fill would be placed in the 100-year floodplain and 11,399 cubic yards in a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers floodway easement Construction workers would encounter 17 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090001, 196 pages and maps, January 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-Iowa-EIS-08-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Iowa 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/756824867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+CONNECTOR+DES+MOINES%2C+POLK+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+CONNECTOR+DES+MOINES%2C+POLK+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Ames, Iowa; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT DRUM CONNECTOR ROUTE (I-81 TO FORT DRUM NORTH GATE), TOWNS OF LE RAY AND PAMELIA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36349520; 13686 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new arterial/freeway facility to connect Interstate 81 (I-81) to US 11 at the Fort Drum North Gate in the towns of Pamelia and Le Ray, Jefferson County, New York is proposed. The connector facility would be located north of Watertown. The project would provide a four-lane connector from I-81 to Fort Drum Army Base to enhance the strategic viability of the fort. The existing connection between US 11 and Fort Drum follows New York Route 342, which is a two-lane highway, and US 11, which is a four-lane, undivided highway. Depending on the alternative selected, the facility would be either an fully controlled access interstate highway or a combined partially controlled access state and interstate facility. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative NC4) would provide 4.3 miles of four-lane divided highway built to interstate standards on a new Alignment. The new connection at I-81 would be an interchange located approximately 0.75 mile north of Exit 48 (New York 342); the Fort Drum connection would also consist of an interchange. The travel distance along the preferred alternative would be 7.9 miles. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $63 million, and the benefit cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to enhancing the strategic viability of Fort Drum, the project would accommodate current and anticipated traffic volumes and address safety concerns related to design flaws and low-capacity characterizing the existing facilities. The project would enhance the overall economic viability of the businesses and communities along the study corridor. Improved operating efficiency along the new connector would result in a significant decrease in the emission of criterion air pollutants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three residences, 3.94 acres of wetlands, and 76 acres of farmland. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at one sensitive receptor site and 50 receptor sites would experience significant increase in noise levels; one noise barrier has been proposed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0384D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090003, Volume I (Part 1)--291 pages. Volume I (Part 2)--260 pages and maps, January 8, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-05-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Fort Drum Army Base KW - New York 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/36349520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+DRUM+CONNECTOR+ROUTE+%28I-81+TO+FORT+DRUM+NORTH+GATE%29%2C+TOWNS+OF+LE+RAY+AND+PAMELIA%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=FORT+DRUM+CONNECTOR+ROUTE+%28I-81+TO+FORT+DRUM+NORTH+GATE%29%2C+TOWNS+OF+LE+RAY+AND+PAMELIA%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST CONNECTOR DES MOINES, POLK COUNTY, IOWA. AN - 36346796; 13684 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new arterial roadway that would traverse the southeastern quadrant of Des Moines in Polk County, Iowa is proposed. The urban highway, to e known as the Southeast Connector, would extend from the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway terminus at Southeast 14th Street to the Vandalia Road/US 65 Bypass interchange. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Yellow Alternative, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would follow part of the Southeast Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in a prior study and part of a north-to-South corridor alignment. This alternative would extend eastward from Southeast 14th Street along an alignment mid-way between Scott Avenue and East Market Street. The mid-block alignment would then follow the railroad rights-of-way to the southeast through the Chesterfield Neighborhood before turning east near Pleasant Hill Boulevard. From there, the alignment would proceed a short distance eastward until it reached the eastern termini at US 65. It is noted that Chesterfield is not currently a recognized neighborhood; however, for the purposes of this study, the housing cluster between Southeast 20th Street and Southeast 34 Street from East Market Street to CB&Q Street are referred to as Chesterfield. A new bridge would be built across Four Mile Creek, and a railroad spur would be required. The Blue Alternative would also follow part of the Southeast Diagonal Corridor alignment identified in a prior study and part of a north-to-South corridor alignment. This alternative would also extend eastward from Southeast 14th Street along the Scott Avenue alignment to CB&Q Street, where it would proceed along CB&Q Street eastward past the South side of Sunset Beach Lake. From that point, the Brown Alignment would meet a city-owned rail rights-of-way and follow it southeast through a salvage yard to Vandalia Road, finally running eastward along Vandalia Road to the US 65. The existing bridge over Four Mile Creek would be refurbished and improved. Bypass interchange. Costs of the Yellow and Brown alternatives are estimated at $77.0 million and $62 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would provide a safe, efficient, and direct route from downtown Des Moines to the US 65 outer Beltway on the southeast side of the city. The facility would enhance system connectivity, improving access to communities and businesses along the corridor. System capacity would also be enhanced, supporting projected growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 15 residences ad seven businesses; business relocations would affect 102 to 212 jobs. The taxable value of the land to be placed into public ownership in the city of Pleasant Hill would amount to $2.5 million, or 0.05 percent of the city's tax base. The taxable value of the land to be placed into public ownership in Polk County would amount to $2.7 million, or 0.01 percent of the city's tax base. Traffic-generate noise would exceed federal standards at 10 residences and two businesses. Highway construction would permanently displace5.6 acres of wetlands, and 9,105 cubic yards of fill would be placed in the 100-year floodplain and 11,399 cubic yards in a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers floodway easement Construction workers would encounter 17 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090001, 196 pages and maps, January 8, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-Iowa-EIS-08-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Iowa 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/36346796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+CONNECTOR+DES+MOINES%2C+POLK+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+CONNECTOR+DES+MOINES%2C+POLK+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Ames, Iowa; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 756827225; 14271-090452_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications to existing portions of US 50/63 (Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. The study corridor boundaries represent logical limits for transportation improvements due to the transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway. These transitions lead to traffic operation deficiencies involving unsatisfactory handling of high traffic volumes and the associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor is approximately three miles long. The corridor boundaries are Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, eastward to the Eastland Drive interchange and from 300 feet south of the expressway north to McCarty Street. The portion of the study corridor looking at access to the MSP site includes portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are advanced as reasonable alternatives in this draft EIS. Under mainline Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A for improved prison access, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G would include a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette, instead of the half-diamond interchange. Access from Clark Avenue would remain the same. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastary district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and 4 business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and 4 business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would have the potential to impact a population that includes 38 percent minority individuals and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. 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: 090452, draft EIS--94 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 756827173; 14271-090452_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications to existing portions of US 50/63 (Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. The study corridor boundaries represent logical limits for transportation improvements due to the transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway. These transitions lead to traffic operation deficiencies involving unsatisfactory handling of high traffic volumes and the associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor is approximately three miles long. The corridor boundaries are Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, eastward to the Eastland Drive interchange and from 300 feet south of the expressway north to McCarty Street. The portion of the study corridor looking at access to the MSP site includes portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are advanced as reasonable alternatives in this draft EIS. Under mainline Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A for improved prison access, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G would include a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette, instead of the half-diamond interchange. Access from Clark Avenue would remain the same. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastary district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and 4 business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and 4 business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would have the potential to impact a population that includes 38 percent minority individuals and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. 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: 090452, draft EIS--94 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using airborne laser scanning technology to interpret old shorelines AN - 756291139; 2010-082095 JF - Abstracts - Israel Geological Society, Annual Meeting AU - Filin, S AU - Bookman, R AU - Marco, S AU - Avni, Y A2 - Sagy, Amir A2 - Bookman, Shachar A2 - Hamiel, Yariv A2 - Mushkin, Amit A2 - Nahmias, Yoav A2 - Medvedev, Benny A2 - Heimann, Ariel Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 44 PB - Israel Geological Society, Jerusalem VL - 2009 KW - lake-level changes KW - Quaternary KW - laser methods KW - geophysical surveys KW - shorelines KW - radar methods KW - Israel KW - Holocene KW - upper Pleistocene KW - Cenozoic KW - lidar methods KW - Jordan KW - Dead Sea KW - surveys KW - Pleistocene KW - applications KW - Asia KW - Lake Lisan KW - Middle East KW - airborne methods KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756291139?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+-+Israel+Geological+Society%2C+Annual+Meeting&rft.atitle=Using+airborne+laser+scanning+technology+to+interpret+old+shorelines&rft.au=Filin%2C+S%3BBookman%2C+R%3BMarco%2C+S%3BAvni%2C+Y&rft.aulast=Filin&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2009&rft.issue=&rft.spage=44&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Israel+Geological+Society%2C+Annual+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Israel Geological Society 2009 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #07005 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - airborne methods; applications; Asia; Cenozoic; Dead Sea; geophysical surveys; Holocene; Israel; Jordan; Lake Lisan; lake-level changes; laser methods; lidar methods; Middle East; Pleistocene; Quaternary; radar methods; shorelines; surveys; upper Pleistocene ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Use of Precast Bridge Members in Areas of High or Moderate Seismicity AN - 746004353; 12601794 AB - Prefabricated bridge components are in increasing demand for accelerated bridge construction. Precasting eliminates the need for forming, casting, and curing concrete in work zones and makes bridge construction safer while improving quality and durability. Precast bridges consisting of pretensioned girders, posttensioned spliced girders, trapezoidal open box girders, and other types of superstructure members are often used for accelerated bridge construction; however, bridge engineers are concerned with the durability and performance of bridges made of precast members in areas of high or moderate seismicity. The applicability of the AASHTO load and resistance factor design specifications to precast prefabricated bridges in areas of high or moderate seismicity was examined. The different seismic design methodologies were reviewed and guidance in their application to precast bridges is provided. The Washington State Department of Transportation design criteria and recent research and bridge projects using the accelerated bridge construction technique in Washington State are reviewed. Show References JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Kapur, Jugesh AU - Khaleghi, Bijan AD - Washington State Department of Transportation, Bridge and Structures Office, 7345 Linderson Way Southwest, Tumwater, WA 98501 Y1 - 2009///0, PY - 2009 DA - 0, 2009 SP - 101 EP - 109 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2131 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - USA, Washington KW - Bridges KW - Transportation KW - Reviews KW - Seismic activity KW - box girder bridges KW - Concrete KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/746004353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Use+of+Precast+Bridge+Members+in+Areas+of+High+or+Moderate+Seismicity&rft.au=Kapur%2C+Jugesh%3BKhaleghi%2C+Bijan&rft.aulast=Kapur&rft.aufirst=Jugesh&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2131&rft.issue=&rft.spage=101&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2131-10 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Transportation; Bridges; Reviews; Seismic activity; box girder bridges; Concrete; USA, Washington DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2131-10 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effective Usage of Harmful Events Data in Transportation Safety Management AN - 746004149; 12601704 AB - The goal of this study is to examine the effective usage of first harmful event (FHE) and most harmful event (MHE) data in transportation safety management by developing strategies to prevent traffic crashes and to reduce injury severities. FHE and MHE data collected from Michigan, North Carolina, and Idaho were analyzed. The analytic procedure consisted of adjusting the events' data sets from the three states to create a common forum for comparison and to explore patterns or lack thereof in the information pertaining to different types of events and different states. Overall, the authors found some patterns or trends in the events' data sets, despite the geographic differences between the three states. Based on these patterns, a set of guidelines for the interpretation of the event data is presented. The authors conclude that FHE data can reveal valuable information on roadway features causing crashes, while MHE data can be useful in the design of countermeasures against fatalities or serious injuries. Thus, proper analysis of FHE and MHE data may lead to more informed decisions on safety management strategies by engineers, enforcement personnel, and policy makers. Show References JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Kar, Kohinoor AU - Khasnabis, Snehamay AD - Arizona Department of Transportation, Highway Enhancements for Safety, 1615 West Jackson Street, Mail Drop 065R, Phoenix, AZ 85007 Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 3 EP - 12 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2137 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - USA, North Carolina KW - Mortality KW - Injuries KW - USA, Idaho KW - safety engineering KW - Transportation KW - guidelines KW - Highways KW - traffic safety KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/746004149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Effective+Usage+of+Harmful+Events+Data+in+Transportation+Safety+Management&rft.au=Kar%2C+Kohinoor%3BKhasnabis%2C+Snehamay&rft.aulast=Kar&rft.aufirst=Kohinoor&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2137&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2137-01 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mortality; Transportation; safety engineering; Injuries; guidelines; Highways; traffic safety; USA, North Carolina; USA, Idaho DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2137-01 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Methodology to estimate particulate matter emissions from certified commercial aircraft engines. AN - 66916770; 19216192 AB - Today, about one-fourth of U.S. commercial service airports, including 41 of the busiest 50, are either in nonattainment or maintenance areas per the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. U.S. aviation activity is forecasted to triple by 2025, while at the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating stricter particulate matter (PM) standards on the basis of documented human health and welfare impacts. Stricter federal standards are expected to impede capacity and limit aviation growth if regulatory mandated emission reductions occur as for other non-aviation sources (i.e., automobiles, power plants, etc.). In addition, strong interest exists as to the role aviation emissions play in air quality and climate change issues. These reasons underpin the need to quantify and understand PM emissions from certified commercial aircraft engines, which has led to the need for a methodology to predict these emissions. Standardized sampling techniques to measure volatile and nonvolatile PM emissions from aircraft engines do not exist. As such, a first-order approximation (FOA) was derived to fill this need based on available information. FOA1.0 only allowed prediction of nonvolatile PM. FOA2.0 was a change to include volatile PM emissions on the basis of the ratio of nonvolatile to volatile emissions. Recent collaborative efforts by industry (manufacturers and airlines), research establishments, and regulators have begun to provide further insight into the estimation of the PM emissions. The resultant PM measurement datasets are being analyzed to refine sampling techniques and progress towards standardized PM measurements. These preliminary measurement datasets also support the continued refinement of the FOA methodology. FOA3.0 disaggregated the prediction techniques to allow for independent prediction of nonvolatile and volatile emissions on a more theoretical basis. The Committee for Aviation Environmental Protection of the International Civil Aviation Organization endorsed the use of FOA3.0 in February 2007. Further commitment was made to improve the FOA as new data become available, until such time the methodology is rendered obsolete by a fully validated database of PM emission indices for today's certified commercial fleet. This paper discusses related assumptions and derived equations for the FOA3.0 methodology used worldwide to estimate PM emissions from certified commercial aircraft engines within the vicinity of airports. JF - Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995) AU - Wayson, Roger L AU - Fleming, Gregg G AU - Lovinelli, Ralph AD - U.S. Department of Transportation, John A Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA USA. wayson@volpe.dot.gov Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - January 2009 SP - 91 EP - 100 VL - 59 IS - 1 SN - 1096-2247, 1096-2247 KW - Air Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Gasoline KW - Particulate Matter KW - Soot KW - Vehicle Emissions KW - Sulfur KW - 70FD1KFU70 KW - Index Medicus KW - United States KW - United States Environmental Protection Agency KW - Soot -- analysis KW - Gasoline -- analysis KW - Volatilization KW - Sulfur -- chemistry KW - Soot -- chemistry KW - Sulfur -- analysis KW - Aircraft KW - Air Pollutants -- analysis KW - Particulate Matter -- chemistry KW - Particulate Matter -- analysis KW - Environmental Monitoring -- methods KW - Air Pollutants -- chemistry KW - Vehicle Emissions -- analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66916770?accountid=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+the+Air+%26+Waste+Management+Association+%281995%29&rft.atitle=Methodology+to+estimate+particulate+matter+emissions+from+certified+commercial+aircraft+engines.&rft.au=Wayson%2C+Roger+L%3BFleming%2C+Gregg+G%3BLovinelli%2C+Ralph&rft.aulast=Wayson&rft.aufirst=Roger&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=91&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+Air+%26+Waste+Management+Association+%281995%29&rft.issn=10962247&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-03-18 N1 - Date created - 2009-02-16 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An attempt for an Amazon geoid model using Helmert gravity anomaly AN - 50459224; 2009-038254 JF - International Association of Geodesy Symposia AU - Blitzkow, D AU - de Matos, A C O C AU - Campos, I O AU - Ellmann, A AU - Vanicek, P AU - Santos, Marcelo C A2 - Sideris, Michael G. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 187 EP - 194 PB - Springer-Verlag, Berlin - Heidelberg VL - 133 SN - 0939-9585, 0939-9585 KW - forests KW - land cover KW - GEOAMA KW - statistical analysis KW - altimetry KW - geodesy KW - digital terrain models KW - Shuttle Recovery Topography Mission KW - gravity anomalies KW - South America KW - Navier-Stokes equations KW - EIGEN-GLO4S1 KW - accuracy KW - geoid KW - Amazon Basin KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50459224?accountid=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=International+Association+of+Geodesy+Symposia&rft.atitle=An+attempt+for+an+Amazon+geoid+model+using+Helmert+gravity+anomaly&rft.au=Blitzkow%2C+D%3Bde+Matos%2C+A+C+O+C%3BCampos%2C+I+O%3BEllmann%2C+A%3BVanicek%2C+P%3BSantos%2C+Marcelo+C&rft.aulast=Blitzkow&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=133&rft.issue=&rft.spage=187&rft.isbn=9783540854258&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Association+of+Geodesy+Symposia&rft.issn=09399585&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 2007 International Association of Geodesy general assembly N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 28 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; altimetry; Amazon Basin; digital terrain models; EIGEN-GLO4S1; forests; GEOAMA; geodesy; geoid; gravity anomalies; land cover; Navier-Stokes equations; Shuttle Recovery Topography Mission; South America; statistical analysis ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The Upper Mississippi Valley lead-zinc district revisited; mining history, geology, reclamation, and environmental issues thirty years after the last mine closed AN - 50394325; 2009-068187 JF - Guidebook Series - Illinois State Geological Survey AU - Brown, Bruce A AU - Hunt, Thomas C AU - Johnson, David M AU - Reid, Daniel D Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 EP - 1 disc PB - Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, IL SN - 0073-5094, 0073-5094 KW - United States KW - water quality KW - mining KW - mines KW - water supply KW - Upper Mississippi Valley KW - lead ores KW - Mississippi Valley KW - reclamation KW - zinc ores KW - pollution KW - field trips KW - production KW - environmental effects KW - road log KW - history KW - metal ores KW - Wisconsin KW - lead-zinc deposits KW - 27A:Economic geology, geology of ore deposits KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50394325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Brown%2C+Bruce+A%3BHunt%2C+Thomas+C%3BJohnson%2C+David+M%3BReid%2C+Daniel+D&rft.aulast=Brown&rft.aufirst=Bruce&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=The+Upper+Mississippi+Valley+lead-zinc+district+revisited%3B+mining+history%2C+geology%2C+reclamation%2C+and+environmental+issues+thirty+years+after+the+last+mine+closed&rft.title=The+Upper+Mississippi+Valley+lead-zinc+district+revisited%3B+mining+history%2C+geology%2C+reclamation%2C+and+environmental+issues+thirty+years+after+the+last+mine+closed&rft.issn=00735094&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - PubXState - IL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. strat. col., sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Guidebook for the 2009 meeting of the Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, Rockford, IL, April 2-4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - IGSSA4 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - environmental effects; field trips; history; lead ores; lead-zinc deposits; metal ores; mines; mining; Mississippi Valley; pollution; production; reclamation; road log; United States; Upper Mississippi Valley; water quality; water supply; Wisconsin; zinc ores ER - TY - JOUR T1 - IDOT test loop; evaluating the field performance of various dense graded aggregates AN - 50250158; 2009-079577 JF - Proceedings - International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields AU - Heckel, G A2 - Tutumluer, Erol A2 - Al-Qadi, Imad L. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 179 EP - 186 PB - [varies], [varies] VL - 8 KW - United States KW - crushed stone KW - experimental studies KW - aggregate KW - asphalt KW - Illinois KW - engineering properties KW - bitumens KW - foundations KW - granular materials KW - roads KW - construction materials KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50250158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.atitle=IDOT+test+loop%3B+evaluating+the+field+performance+of+various+dense+graded+aggregates&rft.au=Heckel%2C+G&rft.aulast=Heckel&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=&rft.spage=179&rft.isbn=9780415871990&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 8th international conference on The bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 8 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 7 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06657 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aggregate; asphalt; bitumens; construction materials; crushed stone; engineering properties; experimental studies; field studies; foundations; granular materials; Illinois; roads; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Subgrade modification; practitioner's experience AN - 50250027; 2009-079569 JF - Proceedings - International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields AU - McCleary, T A2 - Tutumluer, Erol A2 - Al-Qadi, Imad L. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 97 EP - 106 PB - [varies], [varies] VL - 8 KW - United States KW - case studies KW - stabilization KW - soil mechanics KW - foundations KW - ash KW - Illinois KW - soil treatment KW - lime KW - roads KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50250027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.atitle=Subgrade+modification%3B+practitioner%27s+experience&rft.au=McCleary%2C+T&rft.aulast=McCleary&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=&rft.spage=97&rft.isbn=9780415871990&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 8th international conference on The bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 3 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06657 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - ash; case studies; foundations; Illinois; lime; roads; soil mechanics; soil treatment; stabilization; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A comparative subgrade evaluation using CBR, vane shear, light weight deflectometer, and resilient modulus tests AN - 50248581; 2009-079564 JF - Proceedings - International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields AU - Garg, N AU - Larkin, A AU - Brar, H A2 - Tutumluer, Erol A2 - Al-Qadi, Imad L. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 57 EP - 64 PB - [varies], [varies] VL - 8 KW - methods KW - soil mechanics KW - foundations KW - bearing capacity KW - airports KW - elastic properties KW - testing KW - mechanical properties KW - elastic constants KW - instruments KW - measurement KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50248581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.atitle=A+comparative+subgrade+evaluation+using+CBR%2C+vane+shear%2C+light+weight+deflectometer%2C+and+resilient+modulus+tests&rft.au=Garg%2C+N%3BLarkin%2C+A%3BBrar%2C+H&rft.aulast=Garg&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=&rft.spage=57&rft.isbn=9780415871990&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 8th international conference on The bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 9 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06657 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - airports; bearing capacity; elastic constants; elastic properties; foundations; instruments; measurement; mechanical properties; methods; soil mechanics; testing ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Alternatives to heavy test rolling for cohesive subgrade assessment AN - 50248078; 2009-079563 JF - Proceedings - International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields AU - White, D J AU - Vennapusa, P K R AU - Giselman, H H AU - Johanson, L AU - Siekmeier, J A2 - Tutumluer, Erol A2 - Al-Qadi, Imad L. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 45 EP - 55 PB - [varies], [varies] VL - 8 KW - United States KW - soil mechanics KW - Minnesota KW - embankments KW - shear strength KW - experimental studies KW - penetration tests KW - bearing capacity KW - cone penetration tests KW - mechanical properties KW - cohesive materials KW - compaction KW - foundations KW - roads KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50248078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.atitle=Alternatives+to+heavy+test+rolling+for+cohesive+subgrade+assessment&rft.au=White%2C+D+J%3BVennapusa%2C+P+K+R%3BGiselman%2C+H+H%3BJohanson%2C+L%3BSiekmeier%2C+J&rft.aulast=White&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=&rft.spage=45&rft.isbn=9780415871990&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 8th international conference on The bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - Document feature - 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06657 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bearing capacity; cohesive materials; compaction; cone penetration tests; embankments; experimental studies; field studies; foundations; mechanical properties; Minnesota; penetration tests; roads; shear strength; soil mechanics; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Improving subgrade strength and pavement performance by chemical treating subgrade soils AN - 50246595; 2009-079561 JF - Proceedings - International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields AU - Bandara, N AU - Grazioli, M J A2 - Tutumluer, Erol A2 - Al-Qadi, Imad L. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 29 EP - 36 PB - [varies], [varies] VL - 8 KW - stabilization KW - soil mechanics KW - foundations KW - experimental studies KW - ash KW - strength KW - soil treatment KW - mechanical properties KW - lime KW - roads KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50246595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.atitle=Improving+subgrade+strength+and+pavement+performance+by+chemical+treating+subgrade+soils&rft.au=Bandara%2C+N%3BGrazioli%2C+M+J&rft.aulast=Bandara&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=&rft.spage=29&rft.isbn=9780415871990&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 8th international conference on The bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 11 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06657 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - ash; experimental studies; field studies; foundations; lime; mechanical properties; roads; soil mechanics; soil treatment; stabilization; strength ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Dust measurement to determine effectiveness of rural dust strategies AN - 50079128; 2010-024628 JF - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cold Regions Engineering AU - Barnes, David L AU - Johnson, Ron A AU - Wies, Richard AU - Marsik, Tomas AU - Milne, Clark AU - Underbakke, Susan AU - Filler, Dennis M A2 - Mooers, Howard D. A2 - Hinzmann, John, Jr. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 506 EP - 511 PB - ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA VL - 14 SN - 0270-546X, 0270-546X KW - United States KW - mitigation KW - experimental studies KW - clastic sediments KW - dust KW - sediments KW - rural environment KW - Alaska KW - roads KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50079128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.atitle=Dust+measurement+to+determine+effectiveness+of+rural+dust+strategies&rft.au=Barnes%2C+David+L%3BJohnson%2C+Ron+A%3BWies%2C+Richard%3BMarsik%2C+Tomas%3BMilne%2C+Clark%3BUnderbakke%2C+Susan%3BFiller%2C+Dennis+M&rft.aulast=Barnes&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=&rft.spage=506&rft.isbn=9780784410721&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.issn=0270546X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 14th conference on Cold regions engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; clastic sediments; dust; experimental studies; mitigation; roads; rural environment; sediments; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Subgrade temperature and freezing cycles in pervious pavements AN - 50078998; 2010-024621 JF - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cold Regions Engineering AU - Rohne, Ryan J AU - Lebens, M A A2 - Mooers, Howard D. A2 - Hinzmann, John, Jr. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 429 EP - 437 PB - ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA VL - 14 SN - 0270-546X, 0270-546X KW - United States KW - soils KW - Minnesota KW - Albertville Minnesota KW - experimental studies KW - cold weather performance KW - durability KW - freezing KW - concrete KW - temperature KW - foundations KW - Wright County Minnesota KW - frost action KW - roads KW - construction materials KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50078998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.atitle=Subgrade+temperature+and+freezing+cycles+in+pervious+pavements&rft.au=Rohne%2C+Ryan+J%3BLebens%2C+M+A&rft.aulast=Rohne&rft.aufirst=Ryan&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=&rft.spage=429&rft.isbn=9780784410721&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.issn=0270546X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 14th conference on Cold regions engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Albertville Minnesota; cold weather performance; concrete; construction materials; durability; experimental studies; field studies; foundations; freezing; frost action; Minnesota; roads; soils; temperature; United States; Wright County Minnesota ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An innovative sensor for assisting spring load restrictions; results of field demonstration study AN - 50075922; 2010-024620 JF - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cold Regions Engineering AU - Yu, Xiong AU - Yu, Xinbao AU - Zhang, Bin AU - Li, Ning A2 - Mooers, Howard D. A2 - Hinzmann, John, Jr. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 417 EP - 428 PB - ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA VL - 14 SN - 0270-546X, 0270-546X KW - soils KW - experimental studies KW - cold weather performance KW - monitoring KW - moisture KW - loading KW - freezing KW - thawing KW - TDR data KW - laboratory studies KW - frost action KW - roads KW - instruments KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50075922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.atitle=An+innovative+sensor+for+assisting+spring+load+restrictions%3B+results+of+field+demonstration+study&rft.au=Yu%2C+Xiong%3BYu%2C+Xinbao%3BZhang%2C+Bin%3BLi%2C+Ning&rft.aulast=Yu&rft.aufirst=Xiong&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=&rft.spage=417&rft.isbn=9780784410721&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.issn=0270546X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 14th conference on Cold regions engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 17 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - cold weather performance; experimental studies; field studies; freezing; frost action; instruments; laboratory studies; loading; moisture; monitoring; roads; soils; TDR data; thawing ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Spring thaw predictor and development of real time spring load restrictions AN - 50074321; 2010-024633 JF - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cold Regions Engineering AU - Eaton, Robert A AU - Hanscom, Alan AU - Kestler, Maureen A AU - Hall, Andrew AU - Miller, Heather AU - Berg, Richard L A2 - Mooers, Howard D. A2 - Hinzmann, John, Jr. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 551 EP - 561 PB - ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA VL - 14 SN - 0270-546X, 0270-546X KW - United States KW - soils KW - experimental studies KW - cold weather performance KW - monitoring KW - frost heaving KW - loading KW - thawing KW - temperature KW - New Hampshire KW - frost action KW - roads KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50074321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.atitle=Spring+thaw+predictor+and+development+of+real+time+spring+load+restrictions&rft.au=Eaton%2C+Robert+A%3BHanscom%2C+Alan%3BKestler%2C+Maureen+A%3BHall%2C+Andrew%3BMiller%2C+Heather%3BBerg%2C+Richard+L&rft.aulast=Eaton&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=&rft.spage=551&rft.isbn=9780784410721&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.issn=0270546X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 14th conference on Cold regions engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 2 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - cold weather performance; experimental studies; field studies; frost action; frost heaving; loading; monitoring; New Hampshire; roads; soils; temperature; thawing; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Ruggedness evaluation of the tube suction test AN - 50068735; 2010-024614 JF - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cold Regions Engineering AU - Guthrie, W S AU - Shambaugh, J W A2 - Mooers, Howard D. A2 - Hinzmann, John, Jr. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 356 EP - 365 PB - ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA VL - 14 SN - 0270-546X, 0270-546X KW - limestone KW - experimental studies KW - caliche KW - aggregate KW - engineering properties KW - moisture KW - grain size KW - mechanical properties KW - laboratory studies KW - size distribution KW - foundations KW - sedimentary rocks KW - granular materials KW - dielectric properties KW - frost action KW - testing KW - carbonate rocks KW - roads KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50068735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.atitle=Ruggedness+evaluation+of+the+tube+suction+test&rft.au=Guthrie%2C+W+S%3BShambaugh%2C+J+W&rft.aulast=Guthrie&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=&rft.spage=356&rft.isbn=9780784410721&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.issn=0270546X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 14th conference on Cold regions engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 8 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 6 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aggregate; caliche; carbonate rocks; dielectric properties; engineering properties; experimental studies; foundations; frost action; grain size; granular materials; laboratory studies; limestone; mechanical properties; moisture; roads; sedimentary rocks; size distribution; testing ER - TY - JOUR T1 - IPCC 2007 and the validity of previous sea level rise impact assessments; the case of Galveston, Texas AN - 50058720; 2010-029820 JF - Abstracts, Annual Meeting - Association of American Geographers AU - Daniels, Richard C AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 141 PB - Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC VL - 2009 SN - 0197-1700, 0197-1700 KW - United States KW - geologic hazards KW - erosion KW - shorelines KW - Texas KW - global change KW - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KW - Gulf Coastal Plain KW - ice sheets KW - environmental effects KW - climate change KW - Galveston Texas KW - sea-level changes KW - transgression KW - Galveston County Texas KW - coastal environment KW - glacial geology KW - meltwater KW - global warming KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50058720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts%2C+Annual+Meeting+-+Association+of+American+Geographers&rft.atitle=IPCC+2007+and+the+validity+of+previous+sea+level+rise+impact+assessments%3B+the+case+of+Galveston%2C+Texas&rft.au=Daniels%2C+Richard+C%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Daniels&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2009&rft.issue=&rft.spage=141&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts%2C+Annual+Meeting+-+Association+of+American+Geographers&rft.issn=01971700&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aag.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Association of American Geographers 2009 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - climate change; coastal environment; environmental effects; erosion; Galveston County Texas; Galveston Texas; geologic hazards; glacial geology; global change; global warming; Gulf Coastal Plain; ice sheets; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; meltwater; sea-level changes; shorelines; Texas; transgression; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Reducing flight delays through better traffic management AN - 37261930; 3930366 AB - As air traffic in the United States has grown over the last several years, traffic demand has begun to outstrip capacity. As of 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had no effective approach for strategically managing a weather event that has been very disruptive to the national aviation system-large-scale thunderstorms that block the major flight routes in the northeastern United States. The operations research team that supports the FAA's efforts to provide innovations in air traffic management, led by researchers at Metron Aviation, Inc. and the Volpe Transportation Center, recognized the consequence of this operational deficiency and set out to resolve it. In this paper, we show how this team (1) developed and applied system-simulation models to quantify the extent of the traffic flow management problem and convey its magnitude to the FAA and to the aviation industry; (2) designed the Airspace Flow Program (AFP), a new approach to managing air traffic that could correct the problem within the limitations of a short development cycle and a change-resistant culture; (3) designed and developed an interactive simulation system that could be and was used to refine and perfect this concept prior to deployment by developing policies on the use of a decision support system; (4) engaged FAA and airline traffic management experts in a series of interactive exercises using the simulation system to develop the final software design, operational procedures, and decision rules for deployment and use; and (5) provided a clear and convincing postdeployment benefits assessment for the new traffic management approach. The deployment of this new capability was an enormous success that both the FAA and the airline community heralded widely. The postdeployment impact assessment showed benefits to the aircraft operators and the flying public of almost $190 million in 2006 and 2007, the first two years of use, compared to less than $5 million in design and development costs. Broader usage of AFPs and new applications for them show a projected 10-year benefit of approximately $2.8 billion. Reprinted by permission of the Institute for Operations Research and Management Science (INFORMS) JF - Interfaces AU - Sud, Ved P AU - Tanino, Midori AU - Wetherly, James AU - Brennan, Michael AU - Lehky, Miro AU - Howard, Ken AU - Oiesen, Rick AD - US Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - Jan 2009 SP - 35 EP - 45 VL - 39 IS - 1 SN - 0092-2102, 0092-2102 KW - Economics KW - Logistics KW - Simulation KW - Air transport KW - Operations research KW - Transport economics KW - U.S.A. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/37261930?accountid=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=Interfaces&rft.atitle=Reducing+flight+delays+through+better+traffic+management&rft.au=Sud%2C+Ved+P%3BTanino%2C+Midori%3BWetherly%2C+James%3BBrennan%2C+Michael%3BLehky%2C+Miro%3BHoward%2C+Ken%3BOiesen%2C+Rick&rft.aulast=Sud&rft.aufirst=Ved&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=35&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Interfaces&rft.issn=00922102&rft_id=info:doi/10.1287%2Finte.1080.0417 LA - English DB - International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-12 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - 12940 4025; 897 12937; 11670; 8951 10902; 7530 10259; 433 293 14 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1080.0417 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - 2008 Franz Edelman award for achievement in operations research and the management sciences AN - 37260503; 3930733 JF - Interfaces AU - Denton, Brian T AU - Sodhi, ManMohan S AU - Kroon, Leo AU - Huisman, Dennis AU - Abbink, Erwin AU - Fioole, Pieter-Jan AU - Fischetti, Matteo AU - Maróti, Gábor AU - Schrijver, Alexander AU - Steenbeek, Adri AU - Ybema, Roelof AU - Eveborn, Patrik AU - Rönnqvist, Mikael AU - Einarsdóttir, Helga AU - Eklund, Mats AU - Lidén, Karin AU - Almroth, Marie AU - Sud, Ved P AU - Tanino, Midori AU - Wetherly, James AU - Brennan, Michael AU - Lehky, Miro AU - Howard, Ken AU - Oiesen, Rick AU - Rømo, Frode AU - Tomasgard, Asgeir AU - Hellemo, Lars AU - Fodstad, Marte AU - Eidesen, Bjørgulf Haukelidsæter AU - Pedersen, Birger AU - Murray, Regan AU - Hart, William E AU - Phillips, Cynthia A AU - Berry, Jonathan AU - Boman, Erik G AU - Carr, Robert D AU - Riesen, Lee Ann AU - Watson, Jean-Paul AU - Haxton, Terra AU - Herrmann, Jonathan G AU - Janke, Robert AU - Gray, George AU - Taxon, Thomas AU - Uber, James G AU - Morley, Kevin M AU - Rai, Sudhendu AU - Duke, Charles B AU - Lowe, Vaughn AU - Quan-Trotter, Cyndi AU - Scheermesser, Thomas AD - North Carolina State University ; Netherlands Railways ; Università degli Studi di Padova ; Erasmus University Rotterdam ; University of Amsterdam ; Safiro Software Solutions ; Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration ; US Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC ; Norwegian University of Science and Technology ; US Environmental Protection Agency ; Sandia National Laboratories ; University of Cincinnati ; American Water Works Association Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - Jan 2009 SP - 1 EP - 108 VL - 39 IS - 1 SN - 0092-2102, 0092-2102 KW - Economics KW - US Environmental Protection Agency KW - Xerox KW - Health economics KW - Programming KW - Printing industry KW - Simulation KW - Transport economics KW - Production management KW - U.S.A. KW - Water quality KW - Natural gas KW - Health services KW - Business studies KW - Logistics KW - Water management KW - Railway transport KW - Energy industry KW - Industrial productivity KW - Air transport KW - Care of the aged KW - Operations research KW - Norway KW - Netherlands KW - Sweden UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/37260503?accountid=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=Interfaces&rft.atitle=2008+Franz+Edelman+award+for+achievement+in+operations+research+and+the+management+sciences&rft.au=Denton%2C+Brian+T%3BSodhi%2C+ManMohan+S%3BKroon%2C+Leo%3BHuisman%2C+Dennis%3BAbbink%2C+Erwin%3BFioole%2C+Pieter-Jan%3BFischetti%2C+Matteo%3BMar%C3%B3ti%2C+G%C3%A1bor%3BSchrijver%2C+Alexander%3BSteenbeek%2C+Adri%3BYbema%2C+Roelof%3BEveborn%2C+Patrik%3BR%C3%B6nnqvist%2C+Mikael%3BEinarsd%C3%B3ttir%2C+Helga%3BEklund%2C+Mats%3BLid%C3%A9n%2C+Karin%3BAlmroth%2C+Marie%3BSud%2C+Ved+P%3BTanino%2C+Midori%3BWetherly%2C+James%3BBrennan%2C+Michael%3BLehky%2C+Miro%3BHoward%2C+Ken%3BOiesen%2C+Rick%3BR%C3%B8mo%2C+Frode%3BTomasgard%2C+Asgeir%3BHellemo%2C+Lars%3BFodstad%2C+Marte%3BEidesen%2C+Bj%C3%B8rgulf+Haukelids%C3%A6ter%3BPedersen%2C+Birger%3BMurray%2C+Regan%3BHart%2C+William+E%3BPhillips%2C+Cynthia+A%3BBerry%2C+Jonathan%3BBoman%2C+Erik+G%3BCarr%2C+Robert+D%3BRiesen%2C+Lee+Ann%3BWatson%2C+Jean-Paul%3BHaxton%2C+Terra%3BHerrmann%2C+Jonathan+G%3BJanke%2C+Robert%3BGray%2C+George%3BTaxon%2C+Thomas%3BUber%2C+James+G%3BMorley%2C+Kevin+M%3BRai%2C+Sudhendu%3BDuke%2C+Charles+B%3BLowe%2C+Vaughn%3BQuan-Trotter%2C+Cyndi%3BScheermesser%2C+Thomas&rft.aulast=Denton&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Interfaces&rft.issn=00922102&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Collection of 7 articles N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - 1880 10902 1841; 10262 7625; 8951 10902; 7530 10259; 12940 4025; 10599 12937 10600 12941 10453; 10321; 2027 654; 5778 4025; 5792 10484; 11670; 897 12937; 8561 5411; 4257 6431; 13472 7625; 13480 13484 13467 9511 4309; 10172 6431; 6398 10280; 275 462 129; 407 302 129 370; 433 293 14; 306 302 129 370 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development and Application of Macroscopic Emission Model for China AN - 21318065; 11680230 AB - A macroscopic emission model is an important tool in a wide-area emission assessment, which is typically used to calculate and develop a national or regional emission inventory. China has had its own emission models. The use of modified versions of U.S. or European models, which has been the practice in the past, can lead to significant errors in emission estimates. This paper attempts to develop a macroscopic emission model for China on the basis of a combined use of real-world emission data collected in China and some supplementary modeling data from MOBILE. The paper first analyzes the fundamental features and calculation logic of existing models, the basis of the structure and modeling framework of the proposed macroscopic emission model for China. Then, a detailed description of the data collection, data analysis, and calculation processes of the key modules is presented. Subsequently, the paper implements the model by using Visual Basic computer language and the Microsoft Access database, which provide two data input approaches: default parameters and user-provided parameters. These approaches offer model flexibility and improve the model's regional applicability and output accuracy. Finally, a case study of the proposed model for estimating emissions for Beijing in 2008 is presented. Through use of the same data set, the outputs generated by the proposed model are compared with outputs from MOBILE6.2. The emission model developed in this research is shown to reflect the real-world emission level in China better than MOBILE6.2. Show References JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Yu, Lei AU - Xu, Yaofang AU - Song, Guohua AU - Hao, Yanzhao AU - Guo, Shuxia AU - Shi, Qinyi AD - Department of Transportation Studies, Texas Southern University, Beijing Jiaotong University, 3100 Cleburne Avenue, Houston, TX 77004, and China Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 66 EP - 75 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2123 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - China, People's Rep., Beijing KW - Data collection KW - case studies KW - USA KW - Emission inventories KW - Transportation KW - Emissions KW - P 0000:AIR POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21318065?accountid=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=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Development+and+Application+of+Macroscopic+Emission+Model+for+China&rft.au=Yu%2C+Lei%3BXu%2C+Yaofang%3BSong%2C+Guohua%3BHao%2C+Yanzhao%3BGuo%2C+Shuxia%3BShi%2C+Qinyi&rft.aulast=Yu&rft.aufirst=Lei&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2123&rft.issue=&rft.spage=66&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2123-08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - case studies; Emission inventories; Data collection; Transportation; Emissions; China, People's Rep., Beijing; USA DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2123-08 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Real-Time Detection of Hazardous Traffic Events on Freeways AN - 21286959; 11680174 AB - A novel surveillance system to detect hazardous traffic events on freeways is presented. This study developed a methodology to evaluate freeway safety performance on the basis of vehicle trajectory data and a prototype implementation. An important feature of this study is to capture unsafe traffic situations of car-following and lane-changing events, which potentially lead to collisions. The proposed methodology used a real-time safety index based on the concept of safe stopping distance and time to collision. A video image processing-based detection system using a long-distance tracing algorithm was also developed to implement the proposed methodology. The outcomes of this study would be valuable for freeway traffic operators in evaluating traffic conditions in terms of safety in real time. The system is expected to be used to support the development of effective traffic management strategies for safety enhancement on freeways. Show References JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Oh, Cheol AU - Oh, Jutaek AU - Min, Joonyoung AD - Department of Transportation Systems Engineering, Hanyang University at Ansan, Sa1-dong, Sangnok-gu, Ansan-City, Kyunggi-do, 426-791, South Korea Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 35 EP - 44 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2129 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - prototypes KW - Highways KW - traffic safety KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21286959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Real-Time+Detection+of+Hazardous+Traffic+Events+on+Freeways&rft.au=Oh%2C+Cheol%3BOh%2C+Jutaek%3BMin%2C+Joonyoung&rft.aulast=Oh&rft.aufirst=Cheol&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2129&rft.issue=&rft.spage=35&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2129-05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - prototypes; Highways; traffic safety DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2129-05 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Overview and Comparison of Nationwide Underwater Bridge Inspection Practices AN - 21243788; 11300919 AB - The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) were originally created in 1971 and subsequently updated in 1988 and 2004 (effective 2005). The U.S. Code (23USC151) and the Code of Federal Regulations (23CFR650 Subpart C) outline the national bridge inspection program. FHWA requires that all highway bridges with a submerged substructure be inspected underwater to assess the structural integrity with certainty. Since each state program manager has the responsibility and authority to manage his or her own program under the federal regulations, a variety of local policies, procedures, and techniques are currently employed across the United States, which all comply with the NBIS. An overview is provided of nationwide activities, and underwater inspection techniques and methods used by various states are compared. All underwater inspection techniques and methods are described in detail, with the associated advantages and limitations of each discussed. Also discussed are various state-specific policies on underwater inspector qualifications, underwater inspection intervals, data-gathering techniques, inspection report content, and state policies for non-NBIS-covered structures less than 20 ft long. Historical data on trends for managing underwater inspection programs are reviewed, and future anticipated trends are discussed. Although railway bridges, ferry terminals, and port facilities are not discussed, many underwater inspection techniques and methods are also frequently used on those transportation structures by their maintaining agencies. Data would be informative to all program managers dealing with underwater inspection work. Show References JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Strock, Thomas AU - Browne, Terence M AD - Federal Highway Administration, 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000, Madison, WI 53717 Y1 - 2009///0, PY - 2009 DA - 0, 2009 SP - 97 EP - 106 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2108 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Historical account KW - Federal regulations KW - Bridges KW - Structural analysis KW - inspection KW - USA KW - Transportation KW - Reviews KW - Railroads KW - State programs KW - State policies KW - Highways KW - responsibility KW - H 15000:Civil/Structural Engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21243788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Overview+and+Comparison+of+Nationwide+Underwater+Bridge+Inspection+Practices&rft.au=Strock%2C+Thomas%3BBrowne%2C+Terence+M&rft.aulast=Strock&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2108&rft.issue=&rft.spage=97&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2108-11 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Historical account; Federal regulations; Transportation; Bridges; Railroads; Reviews; State programs; Structural analysis; State policies; inspection; Highways; responsibility; USA DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2108-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Decreases in Collision Risk and Derailments Attributed to Changing At-Risk Behavior Process at Union Pacific AN - 21121082; 11332598 AB - Changing At-Risk Behavior (CAB) is a safety process that is being conducted at Union Pacific's San Antonio Service Unit (SASU) with the aim of improving road and yard safety. CAB is an example of a proactive safety risk-reduction method, called Clear Signal for Action (CSA), by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Human Factors Program within the Office of Research and Development. CSA combines behavior-based safety, continuous improvement, and safety leadership development. With sponsorship from FRA, Behavioral Science Technology, Inc., is instructing and advising on the implementation of CAB. Beginning in September 2005, CAB initially targeted improving practices associated with road-crew attention. Over two years since the start of this effort, SASU showed significant 72 percent drop in decertification rates, a proxy for collisions, that are likely to be related to crew attention, namely failure to stop for a red signal aspect, violation of main track authority, and speeding. The other service units in the same region showed no significant change in such decertifications. Beginning in October 2006, CAB expanded its focus to operations in the yard. At the time of this evaluation, there was a strong implementation at the Eagle Pass yard, a moderate implementation in the yards within the city of San Antonio, and no implementation at other yards in the service unit. Since CAB switching started, human-factors derailment rates decreased 69 percent (i.e., improved 319 percent) at the Eagle Pass yard. No significant changes occurred for the City of San Antonio or the non-CAB yards. JF - Decreases in Collision Risk and Derailments Attributed to Changing At-Risk Behavior Process at Union Pacific. [vp]. 2009. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 PB - U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 USA KW - Risk Abstracts; Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - risk reduction KW - Behavior KW - ISE, Chile, Atacama, San Antonio KW - Railroads KW - I, Pacific KW - Human factors KW - Research programs KW - Urban areas KW - Technology KW - R2 23020:Technological risks KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21121082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Risk+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Decreases+in+Collision+Risk+and+Derailments+Attributed+to+Changing+At-Risk+Behavior+Process+at+Union+Pacific&rft.title=Decreases+in+Collision+Risk+and+Derailments+Attributed+to+Changing+At-Risk+Behavior+Process+at+Union+Pacific&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - A Practical Risk Assessment Methodology for Safety-Critical Train Control Systems AN - 21119895; 11332600 AB - This project has two objectives: one is to develop a methodology for quantitative risk analysis of a proposed safety-critical train control system (proposed case), and the other is to build a software tool to help automate the process of data preparation and risk comparison between the current system operation (base case) and the proposed case. This comparison enables the calculation of tolerable hazard rates that the proposed system must be designed not to exceed. That is, the proposed safety-critical train control system will be at least as safe as the system it replaces, in accordance with the requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236 Subpart H. The Practical Risk Assessment Methodology (PRAM) is a cause-consequence analysis supported by event tree analyses, and by statistical analysis of available historical data from FRA's Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting System (RAIRS). First, the accident probabilities and consequences are calculated for each hazard, and then the collective risks are calculated in the form of total cost of accidents per train-mile for the base case and proposed system. The use of a standard tool makes this iterative process transparent to all reviewers. Where a lack of data exists for new systems, this standard process allows the user to collect new data and test new scenarios, and at the same time, maintain the data references between the old and new scenarios. JF - A Practical Risk Assessment Methodology for Safety-Critical Train Control Systems. [vp]. 2009. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 PB - U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 USA KW - Risk Abstracts; Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Risk assessment KW - Historical account KW - Federal regulations KW - Safety systems KW - Computer programs KW - Accidents KW - Control systems KW - Railroads KW - R2 23020:Technological risks KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21119895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Risk+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=A+Practical+Risk+Assessment+Methodology+for+Safety-Critical+Train+Control+Systems&rft.title=A+Practical+Risk+Assessment+Methodology+for+Safety-Critical+Train+Control+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Locomotive Exhaust Emissions AN - 21112231; 11332601 AB - The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) funded a project to conduct locomotive emissions measurement tests using a portable, heavy-duty diesel truck emissions measurement system. Based on the quality of the data collected, the conclusion is the tested equipment can be adapted and/or enhanced for locomotive emissions measurement. This research was funded by FRA in order to improve public and railroad personnel safety as well as to develop a complete locomotive emissions measurement system that would be portable, easy to use, and applicable for both stationary and over-the-road testing. Particulate matter and smoke measurements were not included in the project due to complexities and limited funding. Emissions measurement of locomotives requires extensive preparation in instrumentation, data reduction and analysis. Insofar as the instrumentation is concerned, the use of a compact, lightweight, easy to use, and integrated emissions measurement system greatly reduces this complexity. A portable emissions measurement system that is used in the heavy-duty diesel truck industry was procured for the project. For data reduction, custom spreadsheets were developed to combine engine performance information with raw emissions concentration data in order to generate brake-specific and duty cycle emissions rates and successfully used them in post-processing emissions data. A portable system was developed wherein the emissions and auxiliary instrumentation is transported in a cargo van and parked next to the locomotive for use. This arrangement allows for efficient and portable measuring of locomotive emissions. The setup and measurement portion of an emissions test can be completed in 1-2 days using this system; a significant improvement over current logistics where the locomotive has to be taken out of service, and can result in significant revenue loss to railroads and car owners. Based on the test results, it appears that the tested system can be adapted to provide for an efficient means of measuring locomotive emissions. JF - Locomotive Exhaust Emissions. [vp]. 2009. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 PB - U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 USA KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - locomotives KW - Particulates KW - data reduction KW - Smoke KW - Railroads KW - Emission measurements KW - Trucks KW - Diesel engines KW - Exhaust emissions KW - P 0000:AIR POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21112231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Locomotive+Exhaust+Emissions&rft.title=Locomotive+Exhaust+Emissions&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Trees, Lighting, and Safety in Context-Sensitive Solutions AN - 21105158; 11301054 AB - The negative impact of trees on the performance of lighting systems is widely assumed but not particularly quantified. The positive impact of trees with their social, economic, environmental, and experiential benefits is also well known and one of the staples in context-sensitive solutions for transportation projects. This paper looks at the issue of trees and lighting and tries to quantify the possible impacts and to develop tools for planners, administrators, road authorities, and the professionals who design, install, and maintain trees, landscaping, and lighting equipment. Because of conditions at the test site, a focus on the pedestrian environment was chosen for this study, although the results generally apply to the roadway environment. The subject is complex and not simply addressed so this initial work focuses on identifying whether there is really an issue, what variables to consider, and what course to recommend for future investigation. Show References JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Hasson, Patrick AU - Bradley, Scott AU - Walvatne, Paul AU - Lutkevich, Paul AU - Leone, Chris AD - Federal Highway Administration, 19900 Governors Drive, Suite 301, Olympia Fields, IL 60461 Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 101 EP - 111 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2120 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21105158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Trees%2C+Lighting%2C+and+Safety+in+Context-Sensitive+Solutions&rft.au=Hasson%2C+Patrick%3BBradley%2C+Scott%3BWalvatne%2C+Paul%3BLutkevich%2C+Paul%3BLeone%2C+Chris&rft.aulast=Hasson&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2120&rft.issue=&rft.spage=101&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2120-11 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2120-11 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Strategy Implementation by State Transportation Agencies to Maintain Work Zone Mobility and Safety AN - 21074518; 11129750 AB - Mitigation strategies for work zone congestion are used by transportation agencies to manage or reduce congestion through a work zone as part of the project's transportation management plan. The objective of this research is to assist agencies'strategy selection by identifying strategies used by state transportation agencies (STAs) nationwide and their experiences. An online survey was developed to identify current, past, and future strategy implementation for projects similar to four developed scenarios: rural reconstruction, rural resurfacing, urban reconstruction, and urban resurfacing projects. The survey received 42 responses from individuals representing 28 states (responses were received from multiple districts or regions from a few states). It was found that agencies used several strategies to address different aspects of mobility and safety. Strategy selection varied between facility location and work activity. STAs also provided strategies that failed to meet expectations and identified strategies their agency plans to implement in the future. Based on the survey results and gaps in current literature, recommendations for strategy selection and future research are provided. JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Wiegand, Jonathan D AU - Maze, T H AD - Federal Highway Administration-Nebraska Division, Federal Building, Room 220, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 68508 Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 3 EP - 13 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2107 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - mitigation KW - Transportation KW - management plans KW - Mobility KW - Rural areas KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21074518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Strategy+Implementation+by+State+Transportation+Agencies+to+Maintain+Work+Zone+Mobility+and+Safety&rft.au=Wiegand%2C+Jonathan+D%3BMaze%2C+T+H&rft.aulast=Wiegand&rft.aufirst=Jonathan&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2107&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2107-01 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Transportation; Rural areas; Mobility; management plans; mitigation DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2107-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 16384769; 14271 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications to existing portions of US 50/63 (Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. The study corridor boundaries represent logical limits for transportation improvements due to the transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway. These transitions lead to traffic operation deficiencies involving unsatisfactory handling of high traffic volumes and the associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor is approximately three miles long. The corridor boundaries are Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, eastward to the Eastland Drive interchange and from 300 feet south of the expressway north to McCarty Street. The portion of the study corridor looking at access to the MSP site includes portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are advanced as reasonable alternatives in this draft EIS. Under mainline Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A for improved prison access, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G would include a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette, instead of the half-diamond interchange. Access from Clark Avenue would remain the same. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastary district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and 4 business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and 4 business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would have the potential to impact a population that includes 38 percent minority individuals and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. 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: 090452, draft EIS--94 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - New Criterion and Tool for Caltrans Seismic Hazard Characterization T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42561097; 5467166 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Shantz, T AU - Merriam, M AU - Turner, L AU - Chiou, B AU - Liu, X Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Hazards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42561097?accountid=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=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=New+Criterion+and+Tool+for+Caltrans+Seismic+Hazard+Characterization&rft.au=Shantz%2C+T%3BMerriam%2C+M%3BTurner%2C+L%3BChiou%2C+B%3BLiu%2C+X&rft.aulast=Shantz&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH HILLSIDE ROAD EXTENSION, MANSFIELD, CONNECTICUT. AN - 36344277; 13667 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of North Hillside Road on the Storrs campus of the University of Connecticut from its current terminus northward to US 44 in the town of Mansfield, Connecticut is proposed. The existing two-lane North Hillside Road extends from North Eagleville Road (State Route 430) to a point just north of the Charter Apartments. The roadway extension has been contemplated since the 1970s, when the North Campus core area was considered for the development of a research and technology park. In 2005, approximately $6.0 million was appropriated by the federal government for the construction of North Hillside Road. The proposed 3,400-foot extension of the North Hillside Road would pass through a tract of land adjacent to the Storrs core academic campus, known as the North Campus, to US 44 between two parcels occupied by New Alliance Bank and Bank of America across from Professional Park Drive, creating a four-way intersection, approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 195 (Storrs Road). US 44 would be widened at the intersection with the proposed North Hillside Road Extension to add exclusive east bound and westbound left-turn lanes, an eastbound right-turn lane and a new traffic signal. The North Hillside Road approach to this intersection would be treated as a primary university entrance, with appropriate signage, boulevard median plantings, and landscaping. Five alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new roadway would provide an alternative entrance to the university, relieve traffic congestion on surrounding roads, and facilitate the development of the North Campus core area. Expected research facility developments in the North Campus area would result in a significant contribution to local employment rolls, with a potential for the creation of 2,803 jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way development would displace less than one acre of prime farmland soils to be replaced by 36.3 acres of farmland within the campus. Three forested wetland areas, encompassing .034 acres of wetlands, would be filled, though this impact would be mitigated by the creation of 2.2 acres of wetland elsewhere. Additional traffic generated by the developments expected in the North Campus area would significantly reduce the level of service at several local intersections. Noise levels along the new facility would increase by only 2.2 decibels on the A-weighted scale, but remain well below federal limits. Three we LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080529, 378 pages and maps, December 15, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Universities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Connecticut KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 15, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 756825187; 13663-080525_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 295 (I-295)/I-76/Route 42 interchange, located in Borough of Bellmawr, Borough of Mount Ephraim, and Gloucester City, Camden County, New Jersey is proposed. The interchange corridor experiences congestion and has an accident rate that is more than seven times the state average for facilities of this class due to high traffic volumes, complex lane configuration, and through-traffic weaving movements. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives follow a similar alignment across the northwestern corner of New St. Mary's Cemetery. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a direct connection for I-295 that crosses over I076/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. Alternative D1 would resemble Alternative D, except it would retain Al Jo's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative G2 would utilize a double-decker highway design, with I-295 southbound atop I-295 northbound. Alternative H1 would resemble Alternative G2, except that H1 would retain Al Joe's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative K would provide for a direct connection for I-295 that would cross under I-76/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve safety within the interchange by replacing the existing substandard structure with a system that would meet interstate standards for geometric design. The interchange would provide a direct connection for through traffic on I-295 with a design speed consistent with that of the interchange's approach roadways. In addition, the project would reduce congestion on local arterials such as Route 168 and US 130 and decrease commuter traffic on neighborhood streets, thereby improving local traffic mobility, pedestrian safety, and the level of service on I-295. Noise levels would decrease and ambient air quality would improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of up to 13 residences, possibly one business and, for all action alternatives, five community facilities. Floodplain and wetlands would be displaced. Traffic generated noise levels in the vicinity of the interchange would exceed federal standards at 145 to 216 residential receptor sites. Existing noise walls would be removed in some areas, resulting in exacerbation of noise standard violations. The Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Historic District would suffer due to demolition of contributing structures and the introduction of the interchange into the area. The project would encroach on New St. Mary's Cemetery and other areas likely to contain hazardous wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0071D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080525, 321 pages (oversize, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NJ-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 756825175; 13663-080525_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 295 (I-295)/I-76/Route 42 interchange, located in Borough of Bellmawr, Borough of Mount Ephraim, and Gloucester City, Camden County, New Jersey is proposed. The interchange corridor experiences congestion and has an accident rate that is more than seven times the state average for facilities of this class due to high traffic volumes, complex lane configuration, and through-traffic weaving movements. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives follow a similar alignment across the northwestern corner of New St. Mary's Cemetery. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a direct connection for I-295 that crosses over I076/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. Alternative D1 would resemble Alternative D, except it would retain Al Jo's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative G2 would utilize a double-decker highway design, with I-295 southbound atop I-295 northbound. Alternative H1 would resemble Alternative G2, except that H1 would retain Al Joe's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative K would provide for a direct connection for I-295 that would cross under I-76/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve safety within the interchange by replacing the existing substandard structure with a system that would meet interstate standards for geometric design. The interchange would provide a direct connection for through traffic on I-295 with a design speed consistent with that of the interchange's approach roadways. In addition, the project would reduce congestion on local arterials such as Route 168 and US 130 and decrease commuter traffic on neighborhood streets, thereby improving local traffic mobility, pedestrian safety, and the level of service on I-295. Noise levels would decrease and ambient air quality would improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of up to 13 residences, possibly one business and, for all action alternatives, five community facilities. Floodplain and wetlands would be displaced. Traffic generated noise levels in the vicinity of the interchange would exceed federal standards at 145 to 216 residential receptor sites. Existing noise walls would be removed in some areas, resulting in exacerbation of noise standard violations. The Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Historic District would suffer due to demolition of contributing structures and the introduction of the interchange into the area. The project would encroach on New St. Mary's Cemetery and other areas likely to contain hazardous wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0071D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080525, 321 pages (oversize, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NJ-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 756825035; 13663-080525_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 295 (I-295)/I-76/Route 42 interchange, located in Borough of Bellmawr, Borough of Mount Ephraim, and Gloucester City, Camden County, New Jersey is proposed. The interchange corridor experiences congestion and has an accident rate that is more than seven times the state average for facilities of this class due to high traffic volumes, complex lane configuration, and through-traffic weaving movements. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives follow a similar alignment across the northwestern corner of New St. Mary's Cemetery. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a direct connection for I-295 that crosses over I076/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. Alternative D1 would resemble Alternative D, except it would retain Al Jo's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative G2 would utilize a double-decker highway design, with I-295 southbound atop I-295 northbound. Alternative H1 would resemble Alternative G2, except that H1 would retain Al Joe's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative K would provide for a direct connection for I-295 that would cross under I-76/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve safety within the interchange by replacing the existing substandard structure with a system that would meet interstate standards for geometric design. The interchange would provide a direct connection for through traffic on I-295 with a design speed consistent with that of the interchange's approach roadways. In addition, the project would reduce congestion on local arterials such as Route 168 and US 130 and decrease commuter traffic on neighborhood streets, thereby improving local traffic mobility, pedestrian safety, and the level of service on I-295. Noise levels would decrease and ambient air quality would improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of up to 13 residences, possibly one business and, for all action alternatives, five community facilities. Floodplain and wetlands would be displaced. Traffic generated noise levels in the vicinity of the interchange would exceed federal standards at 145 to 216 residential receptor sites. Existing noise walls would be removed in some areas, resulting in exacerbation of noise standard violations. The Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Historic District would suffer due to demolition of contributing structures and the introduction of the interchange into the area. The project would encroach on New St. Mary's Cemetery and other areas likely to contain hazardous wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0071D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080525, 321 pages (oversize, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NJ-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36349497; 13663 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 295 (I-295)/I-76/Route 42 interchange, located in Borough of Bellmawr, Borough of Mount Ephraim, and Gloucester City, Camden County, New Jersey is proposed. The interchange corridor experiences congestion and has an accident rate that is more than seven times the state average for facilities of this class due to high traffic volumes, complex lane configuration, and through-traffic weaving movements. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives follow a similar alignment across the northwestern corner of New St. Mary's Cemetery. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a direct connection for I-295 that crosses over I076/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. Alternative D1 would resemble Alternative D, except it would retain Al Jo's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative G2 would utilize a double-decker highway design, with I-295 southbound atop I-295 northbound. Alternative H1 would resemble Alternative G2, except that H1 would retain Al Joe's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative K would provide for a direct connection for I-295 that would cross under I-76/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve safety within the interchange by replacing the existing substandard structure with a system that would meet interstate standards for geometric design. The interchange would provide a direct connection for through traffic on I-295 with a design speed consistent with that of the interchange's approach roadways. In addition, the project would reduce congestion on local arterials such as Route 168 and US 130 and decrease commuter traffic on neighborhood streets, thereby improving local traffic mobility, pedestrian safety, and the level of service on I-295. Noise levels would decrease and ambient air quality would improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of up to 13 residences, possibly one business and, for all action alternatives, five community facilities. Floodplain and wetlands would be displaced. Traffic generated noise levels in the vicinity of the interchange would exceed federal standards at 145 to 216 residential receptor sites. Existing noise walls would be removed in some areas, resulting in exacerbation of noise standard violations. The Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Historic District would suffer due to demolition of contributing structures and the introduction of the interchange into the area. The project would encroach on New St. Mary's Cemetery and other areas likely to contain hazardous wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0071D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080525, 321 pages (oversize, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NJ-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE BETWEEN NORTH POLE AND DELTA JUNCTION, ALASKA (SBT FINANCE DOCKET NO. 35468). AN - 36344774; 13662 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of an 80-mile rail line from North Pole to Delta Junction in Alaska is proposed by the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC). The existing ARRC network extends from Seward through Anchorage and Fairbanks, ending at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) through the Eielson Branch rail line. The Eielson Branch line serves Eielson AFB and the North Pole Refinery. At present, commercial freight, other than that associated with Eielson AFB and the refinery, generally enters and leaves the study area by truck via Richardson Highway (Alaska Route 4, extending from Valdez to Delta Junction, and Alaska Route 2, extending from Delta Junction to Fairbanks) or the Alaska Highway (Alaska Route 2 from Delta Junction to Tok and beyond). To be known as the Northern Rail Extension, the proposed single-track line would be located in Interior Alaska, southeast of the city of Fairbanks, and would constitute an extension of the existing rail line that ends at Eielson Air Force Base. The rail line would lie within a 200-foot-wide rights-of-way that would also contain, sidings at several locations, a power transmission line, a buried communications cable, and an access road. ARRC would construct other facilities, such as communications towers and a passenger platform at Delta Junction, to support rail operations. The project would include the construction several culverts and bridges. Several routing options are contained within the proposed action. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The new line would extend the freight and passenger rail service the ARRC provides to the region, provide a transportation alternative to Richardson Highway for individuals traveling between Fairbanks and Delta Junction, and allow year-round ground access to the Tanana Flats and Donnely training areas in the southwest and west sides of the Tanana River for U.S. Army and Air Force personnel and freight. The rail line would be least susceptible to inclement winter weather than the highway and could increase tourism to destinations within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetation would be cleared and soils and permafrost disturbed within the 200-foot rights-of-way, resulting in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat and the exacerbation of erosion and sedimentation in the area. Forested wetlands, scrub/shrub and emergent wetlands, and other significant water resource sites would be displaced or degraded. Habitat for bear, caribou, moose, wolf, and furbearers would be lost. Numerous streams and rivers, some of which provide top quality fish habitat, would be traversed. Significant cultural and recreational resources would be adversely affected. Noise and vibrations from train operations would exceed federal standards at hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Along some sections of the track, facilities and trains would be inconsistent with federal visual resource management objectives. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080524, Summary-41 pages, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--571 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Ice Environments KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Eielson Air Force Base KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 34 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126475; 13655-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 27 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126466; 13655-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 26 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126459; 13655-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 25 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126450; 13655-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 20 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126423; 13655-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 19 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126415; 13655-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 13 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126408; 13655-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 11 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126384; 13655-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126374; 13655-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126355; 13655-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 32 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126352; 13655-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126345; 13655-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 31 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126336; 13655-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126334; 13655-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 17 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126327; 13655-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 16 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126321; 13655-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 15 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126315; 13655-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 14 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126311; 13655-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 36 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126298; 13655-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 35 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126292; 13655-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 30 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126283; 13655-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 29 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126276; 13655-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 28 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126266; 13655-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 24 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126256; 13655-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 23 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126248; 13655-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 22 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126242; 13655-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 21 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126226; 13655-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 10 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126213; 13655-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 9 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126207; 13655-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 8 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126201; 13655-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126193; 13655-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126186; 13655-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 37 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126168; 13655-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 33 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126082; 13655-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 38 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873125947; 13655-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 36346476; 13655 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 4 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126715; 13762-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 3 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126713; 13762-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 9 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126629; 13762-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 8 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126622; 13762-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 7 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126621; 13762-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 6 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126617; 13762-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 5 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126616; 13762-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 2 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126611; 13762-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 1 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126609; 13762-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873126068; 13759-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. 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 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873126068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873126061; 13759-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. 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 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873126061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SH-75%2C+TIMMERMAN+TO+KETCHUM%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SH-75%2C+TIMMERMAN+TO+KETCHUM%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873126057; 13759-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. 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 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873126057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873126050; 13759-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. 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 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873126050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 21 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126045; 13762-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 20 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126024; 13762-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 16 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126020; 13762-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126020?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 15 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126014; 13762-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 14 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126010; 13762-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 13 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873126000; 13762-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 12 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873125994; 13762-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 11 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873125971; 13762-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 10 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873125955; 13762-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873125528; 13759-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. 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 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873125528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873125525; 13759-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. 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 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873125525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873125517; 13759-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. 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 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873125517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 17 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873125505; 13762-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 19 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873125499; 13762-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). [Part 18 of 21] T2 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 873125494; 13762-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 16378738; 13759 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. 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 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/16378738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUISITION OF THE ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA (FINANCIAL DOCKET NO. 35087). AN - 16377741; 13762 AB - PURPOSE: The approval by the Surface Transportation Board of the acquisition of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E) by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Grand Trunk Corporation is proposed. The applicants would legally purchase EJ&W West Company, which is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. to allow the applicants to use EJ&W's main rail line to connect all five of CN's rail lines in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, which includes a portion of northwest Indiana. Chicago has been the busiest rail gateway in the United States for more than 100 years. Trackage of six of the seven Class I freight railroad systems converge on Chicago from all directions excepting the northeast. These carriers transship freight to one another within the Chicago hub. EJ&E operates on more than 200 track miles, extending north and south between Waukegan and Joliet, Illinois, eastward to Gary, Indiana, and northwestward, along Lake Michigan, to Chicago. CN operates on 2,030 track miles in Canada and the United States, including 150 miles of rail, consisting of five subdivisions, inside the EJ&E arc. Each carrier operates three major freight switching and classification yards and several smaller yards in the Chicago metropolitan area. Following the purchase of EJ&E, CN would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN's rail lines in Chicago to the EJ&E mainline. Rail traffic on the EJ&E rail lines inside EJ&E would generally decrease, and the number of trains operating on the EJ&E mainline outside Chicago would increase by 15 to 24 trains per day. The proposed action would result in the construction of six new connecting tracks between existing rail line, totaling 4.9 miles; construction along 19 miles to create five segments of double track to augment the existing single track; and increase in the use of Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard for rail car classification and train assembly and disassembly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition and related structural changes would improve CN's operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CN with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under CN's ownership, that would connect the five CN rail lines radiating from Chicago; make EJ&E's Kirk Yard (near Gary), as well as smaller facilities at Joliet and Whiting, Indiana available to CN, thus enabling the railroad to consolidate car classification work at Kirk Yard and East Joliet Yard and to reduce the use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago Clearing Yard near Bedford Park, Illinois; and enable the CN system to benefit from rail transportation services provided by EJ&E for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago-area utilities and others, thereby allowing the applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in those areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intended use by CN of EJ&E's system would significantly increase traffic within that system, presenting efficiency and safety challenges. These challenges could affect Metro passenger rail services, which are provided, in part using EJ&E tracks. Additional traffic would mean increased risk of automobile-train collisions at the 112 at-grade rail crossings of roadways within the EJ&E system. Moreover, congestion at crossings during train passages could affect the efficiency of emergency services. One of the eight moveable-span bridges within the system would operate less efficiently due to expected increases in train traffic. Workers laying the abovementioned 19 miles of new double-track and 4.9 miles of new connecting rail lines would encounter hazardous waste sites. Some connections would require acquisition of open space, other protected land, and residential property but, overall, land use patterns would be retained. Construction requirements would add $37.49 million in labor income and $50 million per year to the local economy for two years. Noise generated by train operations would exceed federal standards at 1,559 sensitive receptor sites within the EJ&E system, but this would be offset by relief of 2,738 sensitive receptors from excessive noise along the CN tracks in the Chicago area. Vibration levels at 422 vibration sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Due to increased system efficiency, the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 280 jobs in the Chicago area, reducing the annual gross regional product by $32.7 million. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080510, Executive Summary--81 pages, Volume I--333 pages, Volume II--637 pages, Volume III--988 pages, Volume IV--510 pages, Volume V--587 pages, CD-ROMs (2, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.title=CANADIAN+NATIONAL+RAILWAY+COMPANY+ACQUISITION+OF+THE+ELGIN%2C+JOLIET+%26+EASTERN+RAILWAY+COMPANY%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+INDIANA+%28FINANCIAL+DOCKET+NO.+35087%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 4 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825986; 13720-080367_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 1 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825971; 13720-080367_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825912; 13754-080502_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/756825912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825895; 13754-080502_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/756825895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 20 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825269; 13720-080367_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 19 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825267; 13720-080367_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 18 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825265; 13720-080367_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 17 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825262; 13720-080367_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 16 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825259; 13720-080367_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 14 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825256; 13720-080367_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 13 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825252; 13720-080367_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 10 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825249; 13720-080367_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 6 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825245; 13720-080367_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825233; 13754-080502_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/756825233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Alexander&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=120&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=77&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Naval+Engineers+Journal&rft.issn=00281425&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1559-3584.2008.00113.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 15 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825168; 13720-080367_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 12 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825161; 13720-080367_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 11 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825156; 13720-080367_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 3 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825154; 13720-080367_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=21&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AEG+News&rft.issn=08995788&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 9 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825150; 13720-080367_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 8 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825142; 13720-080367_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825069; 13754-080502_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/756825069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825059; 13754-080502_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/756825059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 2 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756824991; 13720-080367_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756824940; 13754-080502_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/756824940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 756824878; 13757-080505_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the City of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alterative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred Alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of a draft supplemental EIS in May 2008, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in the supplement and the same four alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the currently preferred Alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred Alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 Alternative, which is presented in this final EIS as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves Alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected Corridor, the preferred Alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action Alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred Alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the supplement to the draft, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 08-0331D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080505, 497 pages and maps, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 756824864; 13757-080505_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the City of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alterative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred Alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of a draft supplemental EIS in May 2008, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in the supplement and the same four alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the currently preferred Alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred Alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 Alternative, which is presented in this final EIS as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves Alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected Corridor, the preferred Alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action Alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred Alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the supplement to the draft, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 08-0331D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080505, 497 pages and maps, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 7 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756824843; 13720-080367_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 5 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756824827; 13720-080367_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756824705; 13754-080502_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/756824705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 756824683; 13757-080505_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the City of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alterative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred Alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of a draft supplemental EIS in May 2008, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in the supplement and the same four alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the currently preferred Alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred Alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 Alternative, which is presented in this final EIS as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves Alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected Corridor, the preferred Alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action Alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred Alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the supplement to the draft, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 08-0331D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080505, 497 pages and maps, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756824677; 13754-080502_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/756824677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 36344182; 13720 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16387924; 13754 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. 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: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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). JF - EPA number: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys 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/16387924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 15227061; 13757 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the City of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alterative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred Alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of a draft supplemental EIS in May 2008, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in the supplement and the same four alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the currently preferred Alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred Alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 Alternative, which is presented in this final EIS as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves Alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected Corridor, the preferred Alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action Alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred Alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the supplement to the draft, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 08-0331D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080505, 497 pages and maps, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15227061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - New criterion and tool for Caltrans seismic hazard characterization AN - 902082724; 2011-096243 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Shantz, T AU - Merriam, M AU - Turner, L AU - Chiou, B AU - Liu, X AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - December 2008 SP - Abstract S11A EP - 1722 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 89 IS - 53, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - geologic hazards KW - statistical analysis KW - mapping KW - strike-slip faults KW - models KW - California KW - attenuation KW - rupture KW - Coast Ranges KW - seismicity KW - seismic risk KW - natural hazards KW - ground motion KW - probability KW - earthquakes KW - faults KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902082724?accountid=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=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=New+criterion+and+tool+for+Caltrans+seismic+hazard+characterization&rft.au=Shantz%2C+T%3BMerriam%2C+M%3BTurner%2C+L%3BChiou%2C+B%3BLiu%2C+X%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Shantz&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=53%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2008 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - attenuation; California; Coast Ranges; earthquakes; faults; geologic hazards; ground motion; mapping; models; natural hazards; probability; rupture; seismic risk; seismicity; statistical analysis; strike-slip faults; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of State Legal Loads on Bridge Rating Results Using the LRFR Procedure AN - 19570788; 8860533 AB - The main objective of this research was to study the effects of different specified trucks on bridge rating with the load and resistance and factor rating (LRFR) procedure. Twelve specified trucks were selected for this study, which include one AASHTO design truck, three AASHTO legal trucks, and eight state legal trucks. These rating trucks were applied on 16 selected Tennessee Dept. of Transportation bridges to obtain the LRFR ratings. The selected bridges covered four commonly used bridge types, including prestressed I-beam bridges; prestressed box beam bridges; cast-in-place T-beam bridges; and steel I-beam bridges. The research results revealed that (1) LRFR AASHTO legal load ratings factors were enveloped by the LRFR HL-93 truck ratings factors, thereby confirming the validity of the LRFR tiered approach with regard to AASHTO legal loads; (2) the lighter state legal trucks were enveloped by the HL-93 loads, whereas the heavier state trucks with closer axle spacing typically resulted in load ratings that governed over the HL-93 loads; and (3) the bridges with both high average daily truck traffic and short spans were more likely to be governed by state legal load ratings instead of HL-93 load ratings. JF - Journal of Bridge Engineering AU - Hayworth, R AU - Huo, X S AU - Zheng, L AD - Federal Highway Administration, Tennessee Division Office, Nashville, TN 37215, USA Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - Dec 2008 SP - 565 EP - 572 VL - 13 IS - 6 SN - 1084-0702, 1084-0702 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - Bridge Design KW - USA, Tennessee KW - Transportation KW - Bridges KW - Resistance KW - Steel KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19570788?accountid=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+Bridge+Engineering&rft.atitle=Effects+of+State+Legal+Loads+on+Bridge+Rating+Results+Using+the+LRFR+Procedure&rft.au=Hayworth%2C+R%3BHuo%2C+X+S%3BZheng%2C+L&rft.aulast=Hayworth&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=565&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Bridge+Engineering&rft.issn=10840702&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%291084-0702%282008%2913%3A6%28565%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Bridges; Resistance; Steel; Transportation; Bridge Design; USA, Tennessee DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2008)13:6(565) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Flexural Behavior of an Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete I-Girder AN - 19569956; 8860537 AB - The flexural behavior of an ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) was investigated through the testing and related analysis of a full-scale prestressed I-girder. A 28 ksi (193 MPa) compressive strength steel fiber reinforced concrete was used to fabricate an 80 ft (24.4 m) long AASHTO Type II girder containing 26 prestressing strands and no mild steel reinforcement. Intermediate and final behaviors, including cracking, flexural stiffness, and moment capacity, were investigated. Test results are compared to predictions based on standard analytical procedures. A relationship between tensile strain and crack spacing is developed. The uniaxial stress-strain response of UHPC when subjected to flexural stresses in an I-girder is determined and is verified to be representative of both the stress and flexural stiffness behaviors of the girder. A flexural design philosophy for this type of girder is proposed. JF - Journal of Bridge Engineering AU - Graybeal, BA AD - Federal Highway Administration, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA, 22101, USA, benjamin.graybeal@fhwa.dot.gov Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - Dec 2008 SP - 602 EP - 610 VL - 13 IS - 6 SN - 1084-0702, 1084-0702 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - Reinforced Concrete KW - Prediction KW - Behavior KW - Stress KW - Cracks KW - Standards KW - Steel KW - Strain KW - Concrete KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19569956?accountid=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+Bridge+Engineering&rft.atitle=Flexural+Behavior+of+an+Ultrahigh-Performance+Concrete+I-Girder&rft.au=Graybeal%2C+BA&rft.aulast=Graybeal&rft.aufirst=BA&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=602&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Bridge+Engineering&rft.issn=10840702&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%291084-0702%282008%2913%3A6%28602%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Behavior; Stress; Steel; Concrete; Prediction; Reinforced Concrete; Standards; Cracks; Strain DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2008)13:6(602) ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756824671; 13740-080488_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and associated infrastructure to provide for a connection between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada is proposed. The Detroit River International Crossing is the most used trade Corridor between the United States and Canada. The project would consist of a road connection from Interstate 75 (I-75) to a new U.S. Customs inspection plaza and a new bridge to Canada. The Ontario and federal governments of Canada are undertaking similar studies for the construction of the Canadian section of the bridge, the Canadian plaza and the Canadian connection to Highway 401, the freeway to Canada. This EIS process addressed only the U.S. project. Nine bridge build alternatives and six interchange alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The bridge alternatives would involve crossing the river at one of three locations. Two bridge design alternatives are considered, specifically, a cable-stay Alternative and a suspension Alternative. All piers supporting each of the three proposed bridges would e on land to avoid interference with navigation on the Detroit River. Depending on the Alternative considered, estimated U.S. cost of the build alternatives range from $1.847 billion to $1.5 billion. A preferred Alternative is identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide for safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian border in the Detroit River area, supporting the economies of Michigan, Ontario, and Canada. The bridge would also support the mobility needs of national and civil defense interests with respect to the protection of the homeland. Increase long-term border-crossing capacity would be met. System connectivity would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of 324 to 369 occupied residential units, four to 19 vacant residential units, and 43 to 56 occupied commercial units, 24 to 30 occupied commercial units. From 685 to 920 employees would be affected by commercial displacements. Other land affected would include two to four City government facilities, one or two state/federal government facilities, five to eight places of worship, and up to one medical facility. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted due to interchange closures and the rerouting of three us lines, and two to four pedestrian crossings would be permanently removed. Socioeconomic impacts would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income residents in the study area. Three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. A small portion of wetland would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0203D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080488, 877 pages and maps, November 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-05-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Border Stations KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Canada KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756824647; 13740-080488_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and associated infrastructure to provide for a connection between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada is proposed. The Detroit River International Crossing is the most used trade Corridor between the United States and Canada. The project would consist of a road connection from Interstate 75 (I-75) to a new U.S. Customs inspection plaza and a new bridge to Canada. The Ontario and federal governments of Canada are undertaking similar studies for the construction of the Canadian section of the bridge, the Canadian plaza and the Canadian connection to Highway 401, the freeway to Canada. This EIS process addressed only the U.S. project. Nine bridge build alternatives and six interchange alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The bridge alternatives would involve crossing the river at one of three locations. Two bridge design alternatives are considered, specifically, a cable-stay Alternative and a suspension Alternative. All piers supporting each of the three proposed bridges would e on land to avoid interference with navigation on the Detroit River. Depending on the Alternative considered, estimated U.S. cost of the build alternatives range from $1.847 billion to $1.5 billion. A preferred Alternative is identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide for safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian border in the Detroit River area, supporting the economies of Michigan, Ontario, and Canada. The bridge would also support the mobility needs of national and civil defense interests with respect to the protection of the homeland. Increase long-term border-crossing capacity would be met. System connectivity would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of 324 to 369 occupied residential units, four to 19 vacant residential units, and 43 to 56 occupied commercial units, 24 to 30 occupied commercial units. From 685 to 920 employees would be affected by commercial displacements. Other land affected would include two to four City government facilities, one or two state/federal government facilities, five to eight places of worship, and up to one medical facility. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted due to interchange closures and the rerouting of three us lines, and two to four pedestrian crossings would be permanently removed. Socioeconomic impacts would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income residents in the study area. Three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. A small portion of wetland would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0203D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080488, 877 pages and maps, November 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-05-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Border Stations KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Canada KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756824628; 13740-080488_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and associated infrastructure to provide for a connection between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada is proposed. The Detroit River International Crossing is the most used trade Corridor between the United States and Canada. The project would consist of a road connection from Interstate 75 (I-75) to a new U.S. Customs inspection plaza and a new bridge to Canada. The Ontario and federal governments of Canada are undertaking similar studies for the construction of the Canadian section of the bridge, the Canadian plaza and the Canadian connection to Highway 401, the freeway to Canada. This EIS process addressed only the U.S. project. Nine bridge build alternatives and six interchange alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The bridge alternatives would involve crossing the river at one of three locations. Two bridge design alternatives are considered, specifically, a cable-stay Alternative and a suspension Alternative. All piers supporting each of the three proposed bridges would e on land to avoid interference with navigation on the Detroit River. Depending on the Alternative considered, estimated U.S. cost of the build alternatives range from $1.847 billion to $1.5 billion. A preferred Alternative is identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide for safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian border in the Detroit River area, supporting the economies of Michigan, Ontario, and Canada. The bridge would also support the mobility needs of national and civil defense interests with respect to the protection of the homeland. Increase long-term border-crossing capacity would be met. System connectivity would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of 324 to 369 occupied residential units, four to 19 vacant residential units, and 43 to 56 occupied commercial units, 24 to 30 occupied commercial units. From 685 to 920 employees would be affected by commercial displacements. Other land affected would include two to four City government facilities, one or two state/federal government facilities, five to eight places of worship, and up to one medical facility. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted due to interchange closures and the rerouting of three us lines, and two to four pedestrian crossings would be permanently removed. Socioeconomic impacts would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income residents in the study area. Three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. A small portion of wetland would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0203D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080488, 877 pages and maps, November 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-05-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Border Stations KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Canada KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 36343228; 13740 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and associated infrastructure to provide for a connection between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada is proposed. The Detroit River International Crossing is the most used trade Corridor between the United States and Canada. The project would consist of a road connection from Interstate 75 (I-75) to a new U.S. Customs inspection plaza and a new bridge to Canada. The Ontario and federal governments of Canada are undertaking similar studies for the construction of the Canadian section of the bridge, the Canadian plaza and the Canadian connection to Highway 401, the freeway to Canada. This EIS process addressed only the U.S. project. Nine bridge build alternatives and six interchange alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The bridge alternatives would involve crossing the river at one of three locations. Two bridge design alternatives are considered, specifically, a cable-stay Alternative and a suspension Alternative. All piers supporting each of the three proposed bridges would e on land to avoid interference with navigation on the Detroit River. Depending on the Alternative considered, estimated U.S. cost of the build alternatives range from $1.847 billion to $1.5 billion. A preferred Alternative is identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide for safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian border in the Detroit River area, supporting the economies of Michigan, Ontario, and Canada. The bridge would also support the mobility needs of national and civil defense interests with respect to the protection of the homeland. Increase long-term border-crossing capacity would be met. System connectivity would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of 324 to 369 occupied residential units, four to 19 vacant residential units, and 43 to 56 occupied commercial units, 24 to 30 occupied commercial units. From 685 to 920 employees would be affected by commercial displacements. Other land affected would include two to four City government facilities, one or two state/federal government facilities, five to eight places of worship, and up to one medical facility. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted due to interchange closures and the rerouting of three us lines, and two to four pedestrian crossings would be permanently removed. Socioeconomic impacts would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income residents in the study area. Three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. A small portion of wetland would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0203D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080488, 877 pages and maps, November 25, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-05-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Border Stations KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Canada KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 816527099; 14472-080483_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the transportation system in the vicinity of Route 34 in Carter, Reynolds, Wayne, Bollinger, and Cape Girardeau Counties, Missouri are proposed. The Route 34 facility was constructed from 1923 to 1933 with upgrades in the areas of the St. Francis River in 1966, Clark Creek in 1980, and Castor River in 1990. Roadway deficiencies currently contribute to above-average crash rates on various segments of the study area corridor. The project corridor is 85 miles in length and extends from the intersection of Routes 60/21 in Carter County, northerly along Route 21 to the intersection of Routes 21/34. It then extends easterly along Route 34 to the intersection of Routes 34/72 just west of Jackson in Cape Girardeau County. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, transportation system management, mass transit, upgrading and improving the existing roadways, and constructing a two-lane highway on new or partially-new location. Under the preferred alternative, approximately 96 percent of the project is proposed as an improved two-lane facility. A part of the section in the vicinity of Marble Hill in Bollinger County would be a three-lane facility and the section from Byrd Creek to the Routes 34/72 intersection in Cape Girardeau County would be a four-lane urban section incorporating a center turning lane. Estimated construction and right-of-way costs for the preferred alternative amount to $363.1 million in 2004 dollars. Project construction is not expected to begin for at least 10 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce crashes, address deficiencies in roadway geometrics and bridges, and improve safety for the traveling public in the project area. Roadway and intersection improvements would relieve traffic congestion in Piedmont, west of Piedmont to Route 67, in Marble Hill, and west of Jackson. Transportation system linkage would be improved from Van Buren to Jackson by reducing system-wide vehicle hours traveled. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for the project would require the acquisition of 1,233 acres and would cross 24 perennial streams and 38 intermittent streams. Construction of the preferred alternative would potentially impact 763.9 acres of forested lands and convert 221.5 acres of agricultural land. Habitat for Indiana bat, gray bat, two species of mussels, the blunt-scale bulrush, and netted chain fern would be potentially affected. Implementation would displace118 single-family residences, one multi-family residence, 27 mobile homes, and 21 commercial or industrial buildings. Six of 10 archaeological sites located within the preferred alternative corridor could be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 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: 080483, 181 pages and maps, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-05-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/816527099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 816527057; 14472-080483_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the transportation system in the vicinity of Route 34 in Carter, Reynolds, Wayne, Bollinger, and Cape Girardeau Counties, Missouri are proposed. The Route 34 facility was constructed from 1923 to 1933 with upgrades in the areas of the St. Francis River in 1966, Clark Creek in 1980, and Castor River in 1990. Roadway deficiencies currently contribute to above-average crash rates on various segments of the study area corridor. The project corridor is 85 miles in length and extends from the intersection of Routes 60/21 in Carter County, northerly along Route 21 to the intersection of Routes 21/34. It then extends easterly along Route 34 to the intersection of Routes 34/72 just west of Jackson in Cape Girardeau County. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, transportation system management, mass transit, upgrading and improving the existing roadways, and constructing a two-lane highway on new or partially-new location. Under the preferred alternative, approximately 96 percent of the project is proposed as an improved two-lane facility. A part of the section in the vicinity of Marble Hill in Bollinger County would be a three-lane facility and the section from Byrd Creek to the Routes 34/72 intersection in Cape Girardeau County would be a four-lane urban section incorporating a center turning lane. Estimated construction and right-of-way costs for the preferred alternative amount to $363.1 million in 2004 dollars. Project construction is not expected to begin for at least 10 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce crashes, address deficiencies in roadway geometrics and bridges, and improve safety for the traveling public in the project area. Roadway and intersection improvements would relieve traffic congestion in Piedmont, west of Piedmont to Route 67, in Marble Hill, and west of Jackson. Transportation system linkage would be improved from Van Buren to Jackson by reducing system-wide vehicle hours traveled. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for the project would require the acquisition of 1,233 acres and would cross 24 perennial streams and 38 intermittent streams. Construction of the preferred alternative would potentially impact 763.9 acres of forested lands and convert 221.5 acres of agricultural land. Habitat for Indiana bat, gray bat, two species of mussels, the blunt-scale bulrush, and netted chain fern would be potentially affected. Implementation would displace118 single-family residences, one multi-family residence, 27 mobile homes, and 21 commercial or industrial buildings. Six of 10 archaeological sites located within the preferred alternative corridor could be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 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: 080483, 181 pages and maps, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-05-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/816527057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 754909112; 14472 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the transportation system in the vicinity of Route 34 in Carter, Reynolds, Wayne, Bollinger, and Cape Girardeau Counties, Missouri are proposed. The Route 34 facility was constructed from 1923 to 1933 with upgrades in the areas of the St. Francis River in 1966, Clark Creek in 1980, and Castor River in 1990. Roadway deficiencies currently contribute to above-average crash rates on various segments of the study area corridor. The project corridor is 85 miles in length and extends from the intersection of Routes 60/21 in Carter County, northerly along Route 21 to the intersection of Routes 21/34. It then extends easterly along Route 34 to the intersection of Routes 34/72 just west of Jackson in Cape Girardeau County. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, transportation system management, mass transit, upgrading and improving the existing roadways, and constructing a two-lane highway on new or partially-new location. Under the preferred alternative, approximately 96 percent of the project is proposed as an improved two-lane facility. A part of the section in the vicinity of Marble Hill in Bollinger County would be a three-lane facility and the section from Byrd Creek to the Routes 34/72 intersection in Cape Girardeau County would be a four-lane urban section incorporating a center turning lane. Estimated construction and right-of-way costs for the preferred alternative amount to $363.1 million in 2004 dollars. Project construction is not expected to begin for at least 10 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce crashes, address deficiencies in roadway geometrics and bridges, and improve safety for the traveling public in the project area. Roadway and intersection improvements would relieve traffic congestion in Piedmont, west of Piedmont to Route 67, in Marble Hill, and west of Jackson. Transportation system linkage would be improved from Van Buren to Jackson by reducing system-wide vehicle hours traveled. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for the project would require the acquisition of 1,233 acres and would cross 24 perennial streams and 38 intermittent streams. Construction of the preferred alternative would potentially impact 763.9 acres of forested lands and convert 221.5 acres of agricultural land. Habitat for Indiana bat, gray bat, two species of mussels, the blunt-scale bulrush, and netted chain fern would be potentially affected. Implementation would displace118 single-family residences, one multi-family residence, 27 mobile homes, and 21 commercial or industrial buildings. Six of 10 archaeological sites located within the preferred alternative corridor could be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 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: 080483, 181 pages and maps, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-05-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/754909112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - URBAN RING CORRIDOR - PHASE 2 PROJECT, CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, MUNICIPALITIES OF BOSTON, BROOKLINE, CAMBRIDGE, CHELSEA, EVERETT, MEDFORD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - URBAN RING CORRIDOR - PHASE 2 PROJECT, CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, MUNICIPALITIES OF BOSTON, BROOKLINE, CAMBRIDGE, CHELSEA, EVERETT, MEDFORD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 816527121; 14466-080477_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A major new bus rapid transit (BRT) system that would run in a roughly circular ring through densely developed portions of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts is proposed. The Urban Ring Phase 2 project, also known as the Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor, is focused on addressing the particular transportation challenges and needs in the Urban Ring corridor, the area just outside of the downtown Boston core. The Urban Ring corridor includes densely-built, established neighborhoods and commercial centers, as well as emerging neighborhoods with environmental justice populations and under-utilized districts that have residential and commercial development potential. During a decades-long planning process for public transit improvements in the corridor, new residential, commercial and institutional development has increased travel demand and worsened congestion. Under the locally preferred alternative (LPA), the proposed system would operate five overlapping BRT routes through the Urban Ring corridor and employ modern bus vehicles within a system of coordinated infrastructure and service enhancements that enable the buses to operate more like rapid transit service. The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would include: dedicated roadway, including surface roadways dedicated to bus-only use, bus lanes on existing roadways, and a 1.5 mile BRT tunnel through the Fenway/Longwood Medical and Academic Area dedicated for bus-only use; high-frequency service in peak periods, ranging from every 10 minutes to as often as every three minutes in heavy demand segments of the corridor; high-capacity, 60-foot articulated buses powered by diesel-electric hybrid engines, with low emissions and low floors for easy, rapid boarding; widely-spaced, substantial and recognizable transit stations, rather than bus stops; and advanced communications, including reduced delay for BRT vehicles at traffic signals and real-time traveler information. In addition to the LPA and a No-Build Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates nine build alternatives and a lower cost Baseline Alternative. Build Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A are surface alternatives and Build Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, and 4A are tunnel options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the BRT system would provide faster and more direct transit service both for the high volume of trips within the Urban Ring corridor, as well as better connections between points in the corridor and the MBTAs existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail systems. As a result, the Urban Ring would improve transit access and capacity in the corridor, reduce crowding in the central subway system, and support transit oriented development and smart growth plans and policies. An operational system would result in a decrease of 41,500 daily auto person trips and consequential relief for traffic congestion and parking constraints in and around downtown Boston, as well as improved air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would require approximately 27 acres of multiple narrow property takings along the LPA alignment and would require the removal, relocation, redistribution, and reconfiguration of 800 public and private parking spaces along 13 public roadways within the study corridor. The addition of frequent bus operations in the proposed LPA alignment could have some minor local traffic impacts. The proposed crossing of the Charles River on a rebuilt Grand Junction Railroad bridge could result in impacts to the Charles River Basin Historic District and the Boston University Bridge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080477, Volume I--655 pages an maps, Volume II: Response to Comments--488 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Renewal KW - Massachusetts KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=URBAN+RING+CORRIDOR+-+PHASE+2+PROJECT%2C+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+MUNICIPALITIES+OF+BOSTON%2C+BROOKLINE%2C+CAMBRIDGE%2C+CHELSEA%2C+EVERETT%2C+MEDFORD+AND+SOMERVILLE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=URBAN+RING+CORRIDOR+-+PHASE+2+PROJECT%2C+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+MUNICIPALITIES+OF+BOSTON%2C+BROOKLINE%2C+CAMBRIDGE%2C+CHELSEA%2C+EVERETT%2C+MEDFORD+AND+SOMERVILLE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - URBAN RING CORRIDOR - PHASE 2 PROJECT, CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, MUNICIPALITIES OF BOSTON, BROOKLINE, CAMBRIDGE, CHELSEA, EVERETT, MEDFORD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - URBAN RING CORRIDOR - PHASE 2 PROJECT, CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, MUNICIPALITIES OF BOSTON, BROOKLINE, CAMBRIDGE, CHELSEA, EVERETT, MEDFORD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 816527068; 14466-080477_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A major new bus rapid transit (BRT) system that would run in a roughly circular ring through densely developed portions of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts is proposed. The Urban Ring Phase 2 project, also known as the Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor, is focused on addressing the particular transportation challenges and needs in the Urban Ring corridor, the area just outside of the downtown Boston core. The Urban Ring corridor includes densely-built, established neighborhoods and commercial centers, as well as emerging neighborhoods with environmental justice populations and under-utilized districts that have residential and commercial development potential. During a decades-long planning process for public transit improvements in the corridor, new residential, commercial and institutional development has increased travel demand and worsened congestion. Under the locally preferred alternative (LPA), the proposed system would operate five overlapping BRT routes through the Urban Ring corridor and employ modern bus vehicles within a system of coordinated infrastructure and service enhancements that enable the buses to operate more like rapid transit service. The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would include: dedicated roadway, including surface roadways dedicated to bus-only use, bus lanes on existing roadways, and a 1.5 mile BRT tunnel through the Fenway/Longwood Medical and Academic Area dedicated for bus-only use; high-frequency service in peak periods, ranging from every 10 minutes to as often as every three minutes in heavy demand segments of the corridor; high-capacity, 60-foot articulated buses powered by diesel-electric hybrid engines, with low emissions and low floors for easy, rapid boarding; widely-spaced, substantial and recognizable transit stations, rather than bus stops; and advanced communications, including reduced delay for BRT vehicles at traffic signals and real-time traveler information. In addition to the LPA and a No-Build Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates nine build alternatives and a lower cost Baseline Alternative. Build Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A are surface alternatives and Build Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, and 4A are tunnel options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the BRT system would provide faster and more direct transit service both for the high volume of trips within the Urban Ring corridor, as well as better connections between points in the corridor and the MBTAs existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail systems. As a result, the Urban Ring would improve transit access and capacity in the corridor, reduce crowding in the central subway system, and support transit oriented development and smart growth plans and policies. An operational system would result in a decrease of 41,500 daily auto person trips and consequential relief for traffic congestion and parking constraints in and around downtown Boston, as well as improved air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would require approximately 27 acres of multiple narrow property takings along the LPA alignment and would require the removal, relocation, redistribution, and reconfiguration of 800 public and private parking spaces along 13 public roadways within the study corridor. The addition of frequent bus operations in the proposed LPA alignment could have some minor local traffic impacts. The proposed crossing of the Charles River on a rebuilt Grand Junction Railroad bridge could result in impacts to the Charles River Basin Historic District and the Boston University Bridge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080477, Volume I--655 pages an maps, Volume II: Response to Comments--488 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Renewal KW - Massachusetts KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=URBAN+RING+CORRIDOR+-+PHASE+2+PROJECT%2C+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+MUNICIPALITIES+OF+BOSTON%2C+BROOKLINE%2C+CAMBRIDGE%2C+CHELSEA%2C+EVERETT%2C+MEDFORD+AND+SOMERVILLE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=URBAN+RING+CORRIDOR+-+PHASE+2+PROJECT%2C+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+MUNICIPALITIES+OF+BOSTON%2C+BROOKLINE%2C+CAMBRIDGE%2C+CHELSEA%2C+EVERETT%2C+MEDFORD+AND+SOMERVILLE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816527027; 14468-080479_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - URBAN RING CORRIDOR - PHASE 2 PROJECT, CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, MUNICIPALITIES OF BOSTON, BROOKLINE, CAMBRIDGE, CHELSEA, EVERETT, MEDFORD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - URBAN RING CORRIDOR - PHASE 2 PROJECT, CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, MUNICIPALITIES OF BOSTON, BROOKLINE, CAMBRIDGE, CHELSEA, EVERETT, MEDFORD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 816527016; 14466-080477_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A major new bus rapid transit (BRT) system that would run in a roughly circular ring through densely developed portions of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts is proposed. The Urban Ring Phase 2 project, also known as the Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor, is focused on addressing the particular transportation challenges and needs in the Urban Ring corridor, the area just outside of the downtown Boston core. The Urban Ring corridor includes densely-built, established neighborhoods and commercial centers, as well as emerging neighborhoods with environmental justice populations and under-utilized districts that have residential and commercial development potential. During a decades-long planning process for public transit improvements in the corridor, new residential, commercial and institutional development has increased travel demand and worsened congestion. Under the locally preferred alternative (LPA), the proposed system would operate five overlapping BRT routes through the Urban Ring corridor and employ modern bus vehicles within a system of coordinated infrastructure and service enhancements that enable the buses to operate more like rapid transit service. The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would include: dedicated roadway, including surface roadways dedicated to bus-only use, bus lanes on existing roadways, and a 1.5 mile BRT tunnel through the Fenway/Longwood Medical and Academic Area dedicated for bus-only use; high-frequency service in peak periods, ranging from every 10 minutes to as often as every three minutes in heavy demand segments of the corridor; high-capacity, 60-foot articulated buses powered by diesel-electric hybrid engines, with low emissions and low floors for easy, rapid boarding; widely-spaced, substantial and recognizable transit stations, rather than bus stops; and advanced communications, including reduced delay for BRT vehicles at traffic signals and real-time traveler information. In addition to the LPA and a No-Build Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates nine build alternatives and a lower cost Baseline Alternative. Build Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A are surface alternatives and Build Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, and 4A are tunnel options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the BRT system would provide faster and more direct transit service both for the high volume of trips within the Urban Ring corridor, as well as better connections between points in the corridor and the MBTAs existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail systems. As a result, the Urban Ring would improve transit access and capacity in the corridor, reduce crowding in the central subway system, and support transit oriented development and smart growth plans and policies. An operational system would result in a decrease of 41,500 daily auto person trips and consequential relief for traffic congestion and parking constraints in and around downtown Boston, as well as improved air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would require approximately 27 acres of multiple narrow property takings along the LPA alignment and would require the removal, relocation, redistribution, and reconfiguration of 800 public and private parking spaces along 13 public roadways within the study corridor. The addition of frequent bus operations in the proposed LPA alignment could have some minor local traffic impacts. The proposed crossing of the Charles River on a rebuilt Grand Junction Railroad bridge could result in impacts to the Charles River Basin Historic District and the Boston University Bridge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080477, Volume I--655 pages an maps, Volume II: Response to Comments--488 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Renewal KW - Massachusetts KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=URBAN+RING+CORRIDOR+-+PHASE+2+PROJECT%2C+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+MUNICIPALITIES+OF+BOSTON%2C+BROOKLINE%2C+CAMBRIDGE%2C+CHELSEA%2C+EVERETT%2C+MEDFORD+AND+SOMERVILLE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=URBAN+RING+CORRIDOR+-+PHASE+2+PROJECT%2C+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+MUNICIPALITIES+OF+BOSTON%2C+BROOKLINE%2C+CAMBRIDGE%2C+CHELSEA%2C+EVERETT%2C+MEDFORD+AND+SOMERVILLE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816527006; 14468-080479_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816526998; 14468-080479_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816526905; 14468-080479_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816526902; 14468-080479_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - URBAN RING CORRIDOR - PHASE 2 PROJECT, CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, MUNICIPALITIES OF BOSTON, BROOKLINE, CAMBRIDGE, CHELSEA, EVERETT, MEDFORD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 754908689; 14466 AB - PURPOSE: A major new bus rapid transit (BRT) system that would run in a roughly circular ring through densely developed portions of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts is proposed. The Urban Ring Phase 2 project, also known as the Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor, is focused on addressing the particular transportation challenges and needs in the Urban Ring corridor, the area just outside of the downtown Boston core. The Urban Ring corridor includes densely-built, established neighborhoods and commercial centers, as well as emerging neighborhoods with environmental justice populations and under-utilized districts that have residential and commercial development potential. During a decades-long planning process for public transit improvements in the corridor, new residential, commercial and institutional development has increased travel demand and worsened congestion. Under the locally preferred alternative (LPA), the proposed system would operate five overlapping BRT routes through the Urban Ring corridor and employ modern bus vehicles within a system of coordinated infrastructure and service enhancements that enable the buses to operate more like rapid transit service. The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would include: dedicated roadway, including surface roadways dedicated to bus-only use, bus lanes on existing roadways, and a 1.5 mile BRT tunnel through the Fenway/Longwood Medical and Academic Area dedicated for bus-only use; high-frequency service in peak periods, ranging from every 10 minutes to as often as every three minutes in heavy demand segments of the corridor; high-capacity, 60-foot articulated buses powered by diesel-electric hybrid engines, with low emissions and low floors for easy, rapid boarding; widely-spaced, substantial and recognizable transit stations, rather than bus stops; and advanced communications, including reduced delay for BRT vehicles at traffic signals and real-time traveler information. In addition to the LPA and a No-Build Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates nine build alternatives and a lower cost Baseline Alternative. Build Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A are surface alternatives and Build Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, and 4A are tunnel options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the BRT system would provide faster and more direct transit service both for the high volume of trips within the Urban Ring corridor, as well as better connections between points in the corridor and the MBTAs existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail systems. As a result, the Urban Ring would improve transit access and capacity in the corridor, reduce crowding in the central subway system, and support transit oriented development and smart growth plans and policies. An operational system would result in a decrease of 41,500 daily auto person trips and consequential relief for traffic congestion and parking constraints in and around downtown Boston, as well as improved air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would require approximately 27 acres of multiple narrow property takings along the LPA alignment and would require the removal, relocation, redistribution, and reconfiguration of 800 public and private parking spaces along 13 public roadways within the study corridor. The addition of frequent bus operations in the proposed LPA alignment could have some minor local traffic impacts. The proposed crossing of the Charles River on a rebuilt Grand Junction Railroad bridge could result in impacts to the Charles River Basin Historic District and the Boston University Bridge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080477, Volume I--655 pages an maps, Volume II: Response to Comments--488 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Renewal KW - Massachusetts KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=URBAN+RING+CORRIDOR+-+PHASE+2+PROJECT%2C+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+MUNICIPALITIES+OF+BOSTON%2C+BROOKLINE%2C+CAMBRIDGE%2C+CHELSEA%2C+EVERETT%2C+MEDFORD+AND+SOMERVILLE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=URBAN+RING+CORRIDOR+-+PHASE+2+PROJECT%2C+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+MUNICIPALITIES+OF+BOSTON%2C+BROOKLINE%2C+CAMBRIDGE%2C+CHELSEA%2C+EVERETT%2C+MEDFORD+AND+SOMERVILLE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 754908382; 14468 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SCHUYLER HEIM BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND SR 47 EXPRESSWAY PROJECT, PORTS AND CITIES OF LONG BEACH AND LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2007 AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SCHUYLER HEIM BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND SR 47 EXPRESSWAY PROJECT, PORTS AND CITIES OF LONG BEACH AND LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2007 AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT). AN - 756827265; 13734-080475_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seismically safe vehicular connection along the north-south Corridor between Terminal Island and the mainland in Long Beach and Los Angeles, California is proposed to replace the Schuyler Heim Bridge. The project Corridor lies between Terminal Island on the south and state Route (SR) 91 (Artesia Freeway) on the north and between Interstate 710 I(I-710; (Terminal Island Freeway) on the east and I-110 (Harbor Freeway) on the west. After a 1994 earthquake, the Schuyler Heim Bridge was determined to be in need of seismic retrofit improvements. In 1998, it was determined that replacement of the bridge would be more cost-effective and practical than retrofitting the existing structure. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 6) and a transportation systems management Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of August 2007. All build alternatives involve construction of a new bridge to either replace or complement the existing structure. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also involve construction of a new SR 47 expressway along the Alameda Corridor and extension of SR 103 to Alameda Street, respectively. Alternative 3 would avoid the demolition of the existing bridge. Alternative would involve only bridge replacement and demolition of the existing structure. Alternative 5 would take a transportation system management approach to the bridge-related problems. Estimated costs of alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are estimated at $659.1 million, $709.2 million, $733.9 million, $388.5 million, and $10.7 million, respectively. This supplemental draft EIS, which constitutes a recirculation of the draft EIS, focuses on new information related to the health risk associated with air toxins. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The bridge and related road improvements would provide a seismically safe, high-capacity Alternative route for traffic between Terminal Island and the mainland. Uninterrupted transport would be provided for commuters, travelers, and freight after a major earthquake. Safety would be improved and congestion relieved on the local street network. The ancillary improvements would also eliminate at-grade railroad crossings ad signalized intersections and connect the bridge with an emergency service route that would facilitate movement to and from the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports following a major earthquake. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the displacement of 10 to 61 parcels. Alternative 1 would require the acquisition of six commercial establishments. Numerous construction easements would have to be purchased. Any bridge connecting Terminal Island with the mainland would lie within a seismically active area that is highly prone to destructive earthquakes. Wetlands east of the existing bridge and along SR 103 would be displaced. Construction activities would result in the removal of southern tarplant and other federally protected plant species, and bat roosts would be displaced, affecting several species. Demolition of the Schuyler Bridge would result in the loss of a historically significant structure, while modification of the bridge would result in the alteration of the structure, reducing its historic value. Bridge demolition could also release hazardous materials into the environment, and construction workers are likely to encounter other hazardous materials sites while working within the project Corridor. Emissions of criteria pollutants oxides during operation of the bridge would exceed federal and state air quality standards. Noise within residential areas along the Corridor would approach levels at which noise abatement criteria are relevant. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0394D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080475, 327 pages and maps, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bridges KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCHUYLER+HEIM+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+SR+47+EXPRESSWAY+PROJECT%2C+PORTS+AND+CITIES+OF+LONG+BEACH+AND+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2007+AND+RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+REPORT%29.&rft.title=SCHUYLER+HEIM+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+SR+47+EXPRESSWAY+PROJECT%2C+PORTS+AND+CITIES+OF+LONG+BEACH+AND+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2007+AND+RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+REPORT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SCHUYLER HEIM BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND SR 47 EXPRESSWAY PROJECT, PORTS AND CITIES OF LONG BEACH AND LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2007 AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT). AN - 16388716; 13734 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seismically safe vehicular connection along the north-south Corridor between Terminal Island and the mainland in Long Beach and Los Angeles, California is proposed to replace the Schuyler Heim Bridge. The project Corridor lies between Terminal Island on the south and state Route (SR) 91 (Artesia Freeway) on the north and between Interstate 710 I(I-710; (Terminal Island Freeway) on the east and I-110 (Harbor Freeway) on the west. After a 1994 earthquake, the Schuyler Heim Bridge was determined to be in need of seismic retrofit improvements. In 1998, it was determined that replacement of the bridge would be more cost-effective and practical than retrofitting the existing structure. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 6) and a transportation systems management Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of August 2007. All build alternatives involve construction of a new bridge to either replace or complement the existing structure. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also involve construction of a new SR 47 expressway along the Alameda Corridor and extension of SR 103 to Alameda Street, respectively. Alternative 3 would avoid the demolition of the existing bridge. Alternative would involve only bridge replacement and demolition of the existing structure. Alternative 5 would take a transportation system management approach to the bridge-related problems. Estimated costs of alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are estimated at $659.1 million, $709.2 million, $733.9 million, $388.5 million, and $10.7 million, respectively. This supplemental draft EIS, which constitutes a recirculation of the draft EIS, focuses on new information related to the health risk associated with air toxins. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The bridge and related road improvements would provide a seismically safe, high-capacity Alternative route for traffic between Terminal Island and the mainland. Uninterrupted transport would be provided for commuters, travelers, and freight after a major earthquake. Safety would be improved and congestion relieved on the local street network. The ancillary improvements would also eliminate at-grade railroad crossings ad signalized intersections and connect the bridge with an emergency service route that would facilitate movement to and from the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports following a major earthquake. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the displacement of 10 to 61 parcels. Alternative 1 would require the acquisition of six commercial establishments. Numerous construction easements would have to be purchased. Any bridge connecting Terminal Island with the mainland would lie within a seismically active area that is highly prone to destructive earthquakes. Wetlands east of the existing bridge and along SR 103 would be displaced. Construction activities would result in the removal of southern tarplant and other federally protected plant species, and bat roosts would be displaced, affecting several species. Demolition of the Schuyler Bridge would result in the loss of a historically significant structure, while modification of the bridge would result in the alteration of the structure, reducing its historic value. Bridge demolition could also release hazardous materials into the environment, and construction workers are likely to encounter other hazardous materials sites while working within the project Corridor. Emissions of criteria pollutants oxides during operation of the bridge would exceed federal and state air quality standards. Noise within residential areas along the Corridor would approach levels at which noise abatement criteria are relevant. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0394D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080475, 327 pages and maps, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bridges KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCHUYLER+HEIM+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+SR+47+EXPRESSWAY+PROJECT%2C+PORTS+AND+CITIES+OF+LONG+BEACH+AND+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2007+AND+RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+REPORT%29.&rft.title=SCHUYLER+HEIM+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+SR+47+EXPRESSWAY+PROJECT%2C+PORTS+AND+CITIES+OF+LONG+BEACH+AND+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2007+AND+RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+REPORT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Creating a Network of Express Lanes in Metropolitan Areas T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41838970; 5060156 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - DeCorla-Souza, Patrick Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Metropolitan areas KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41838970?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Creating+a+Network+of+Express+Lanes+in+Metropolitan+Areas&rft.au=DeCorla-Souza%2C+Patrick&rft.aulast=DeCorla-Souza&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Remote Infrared Audible Signage T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41838864; 5059738 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Wagley, Raj Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41838864?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Remote+Infrared+Audible+Signage&rft.au=Wagley%2C+Raj&rft.aulast=Wagley&rft.aufirst=Raj&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Motorcycle Safety and Intelligent Transportation Systems T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41838233; 5060127 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Halladay, Michael Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Motorcycles KW - Transportation KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41838233?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Motorcycle+Safety+and+Intelligent+Transportation+Systems&rft.au=Halladay%2C+Michael&rft.aulast=Halladay&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Performance Measures Through Wireless M2M Communications T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41838185; 5060114 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Gregory, Clint Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Communication KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41838185?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Performance+Measures+Through+Wireless+M2M+Communications&rft.au=Gregory%2C+Clint&rft.aulast=Gregory&rft.aufirst=Clint&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Virtual Weigh Station Demonstration Project in Minnesota T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41837400; 5059982 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Starr, Ray Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, Minnesota KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41837400?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Virtual+Weigh+Station+Demonstration+Project+in+Minnesota&rft.au=Starr%2C+Ray&rft.aulast=Starr&rft.aufirst=Ray&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor -- Gateway System Transition: Planning to Execution T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41836032; 5059944 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Sikaras, Charles Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41836032?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee+Corridor+--+Gateway+System+Transition%3A+Planning+to+Execution&rft.au=Sikaras%2C+Charles&rft.aulast=Sikaras&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Multi-Agency Regional Video Interoperability, Integration, and Management Platform for ITS T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41831170; 5060461 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Amin, Rajendra Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Integration KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41831170?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Multi-Agency+Regional+Video+Interoperability%2C+Integration%2C+and+Management+Platform+for+ITS&rft.au=Amin%2C+Rajendra&rft.aulast=Amin&rft.aufirst=Rajendra&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Improving the Operations of Managed Lanes Through Vehicle Infrastructure Cooperation T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41821781; 5060329 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Ferlis, Robert Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Infrastructure KW - Cooperation KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41821781?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Improving+the+Operations+of+Managed+Lanes+Through+Vehicle+Infrastructure+Cooperation&rft.au=Ferlis%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Ferlis&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Traffi c Engineering and ITS Initiatives Improving Safety and Mobility in New York City T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41820569; 5059631 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Athanailos, Ernest Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, New York, New York City KW - Urban areas KW - Safety engineering KW - Mobility KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41820569?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Traffi+c+Engineering+and+ITS+Initiatives+Improving+Safety+and+Mobility+in+New+York+City&rft.au=Athanailos%2C+Ernest&rft.aulast=Athanailos&rft.aufirst=Ernest&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Evaluation and Safety Benefi ts of Using Cell Phone Probe Data in Georgia T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41820492; 5059619 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Boodhoo, Ronald Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, Georgia KW - Cellular telephones KW - Probes KW - Data processing KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41820492?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Evaluation+and+Safety+Benefi+ts+of+Using+Cell+Phone+Probe+Data+in+Georgia&rft.au=Boodhoo%2C+Ronald&rft.aulast=Boodhoo&rft.aufirst=Ronald&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Upgrades to 511 Traveler Information System Reflect Customer Feedback T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41819676; 5060008 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Cowherd, Scott Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Information systems KW - Feedback KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41819676?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Upgrades+to+511+Traveler+Information+System+Reflect+Customer+Feedback&rft.au=Cowherd%2C+Scott&rft.aulast=Cowherd&rft.aufirst=Scott&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - ITS and the Role It Plays in a Disaster T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41817331; 5059938 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Haukom, Terry Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Disasters KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41817331?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=ITS+and+the+Role+It+Plays+in+a+Disaster&rft.au=Haukom%2C+Terry&rft.aulast=Haukom&rft.aufirst=Terry&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Partnership Deployment of ITS Along the U.S. Highway 90 Corridor T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41817084; 5059883 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Stokes, Michael Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA KW - Highways KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41817084?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Partnership+Deployment+of+ITS+Along+the+U.S.+Highway+90+Corridor&rft.au=Stokes%2C+Michael&rft.aulast=Stokes&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Technology Transfer and Deployment of ITS Onboard Commercial Motor Vehicles T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41815695; 5060335 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Houser, Amy Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Technology transfer KW - Motor vehicles KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41815695?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Technology+Transfer+and+Deployment+of+ITS+Onboard+Commercial+Motor+Vehicles&rft.au=Houser%2C+Amy&rft.aulast=Houser&rft.aufirst=Amy&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - New York State Department of Transportation INFORM Travel Time Sign System T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41811532; 5059932 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Sosa, Emilio Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, New York KW - Transportation KW - Travel KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41811532?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=New+York+State+Department+of+Transportation+INFORM+Travel+Time+Sign+System&rft.au=Sosa%2C+Emilio&rft.aulast=Sosa&rft.aufirst=Emilio&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A New DMD Concept T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41811450; 5059930 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Krueger, Gregory Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41811450?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=A+New+DMD+Concept&rft.au=Krueger%2C+Gregory&rft.aulast=Krueger&rft.aufirst=Gregory&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Estimating Costs, Benefi ts, and Revenues from Congestion Pricing of Limited Access Highways T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41811081; 5059836 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - DeCorla-Souza, Patrick Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Pricing KW - Highways KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41811081?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Estimating+Costs%2C+Benefi+ts%2C+and+Revenues+from+Congestion+Pricing+of+Limited+Access+Highways&rft.au=DeCorla-Souza%2C+Patrick&rft.aulast=DeCorla-Souza&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Phase I of Smart Park -- Real-Time Information on Truck Parking T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41801455; 5060069 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Kwan, Quon Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Trucks KW - Parks KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41801455?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Phase+I+of+Smart+Park+--+Real-Time+Information+on+Truck+Parking&rft.au=Kwan%2C+Quon&rft.aulast=Kwan&rft.aufirst=Quon&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Improving Commercial Vehicle Driver Safety: The Employer Notification Service State Pilot Test T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41800979; 5059949 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Flanigan, Chris Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41800979?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Improving+Commercial+Vehicle+Driver+Safety%3A+The+Employer+Notification+Service+State+Pilot+Test&rft.au=Flanigan%2C+Chris&rft.aulast=Flanigan&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Statewide Rural Dynamic Message Sign Development T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41799454; 5059905 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Sims, Ervin Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Rural areas KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41799454?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Statewide+Rural+Dynamic+Message+Sign+Development&rft.au=Sims%2C+Ervin&rft.aulast=Sims&rft.aufirst=Ervin&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Lower Manhattan Construction Support Command Center T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41799136; 5060167 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Tipaldo, John Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, New York, Manhattan KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41799136?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Lower+Manhattan+Construction+Support+Command+Center&rft.au=Tipaldo%2C+John&rft.aulast=Tipaldo&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Reducing Congestion with a New Road Financing System T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41799028; 5059808 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - DeCorla-Souza, Patrick Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Financing KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41799028?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Reducing+Congestion+with+a+New+Road+Financing+System&rft.au=DeCorla-Souza%2C+Patrick&rft.aulast=DeCorla-Souza&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Assessment of Concepts and Technologies for a "Green" Traffi c Management Center T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41798967; 5059822 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Saleem, Faisal Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Technology KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41798967?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Assessment+of+Concepts+and+Technologies+for+a+%22Green%22+Traffi+c+Management+Center&rft.au=Saleem%2C+Faisal&rft.aulast=Saleem&rft.aufirst=Faisal&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - AZTech Center-to-Center System Development T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41795754; 5059920 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Saleem, Faisal Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Development KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41795754?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=AZTech+Center-to-Center+System+Development&rft.au=Saleem%2C+Faisal&rft.aulast=Saleem&rft.aufirst=Faisal&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Validation of Crash Analysis and Causes Supporting the Need for CICAS T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41793483; 5060411 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Starr, Ray Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41793483?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Validation+of+Crash+Analysis+and+Causes+Supporting+the+Need+for+CICAS&rft.au=Starr%2C+Ray&rft.aulast=Starr&rft.aufirst=Ray&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Integrating Disaster Management and Transportation Management Activities in New Hampshire T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41791699; 5059939 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Lambert, William Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, New Hampshire KW - Emergency preparedness KW - Transportation KW - Disasters KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41791699?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Integrating+Disaster+Management+and+Transportation+Management+Activities+in+New+Hampshire&rft.au=Lambert%2C+William&rft.aulast=Lambert&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Use of Portable ETTM Equipment for Special Event Parking Management T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41791117; 5060330 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Fawumi, Ola Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41791117?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Use+of+Portable+ETTM+Equipment+for+Special+Event+Parking+Management&rft.au=Fawumi%2C+Ola&rft.aulast=Fawumi&rft.aufirst=Ola&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Building the Foundation for a Robust Regional Multi-Agency Transit Service Information Portal T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41791081; 5059795 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Davis, James Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Foundations KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41791081?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Building+the+Foundation+for+a+Robust+Regional+Multi-Agency+Transit+Service+Information+Portal&rft.au=Davis%2C+James&rft.aulast=Davis&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Evaluation of Performance Measures for Detroit Freeway CCTV Camera Upgrades T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41791011; 5059780 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Silver, Maria Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, Michigan, Detroit KW - Cameras KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41791011?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+Performance+Measures+for+Detroit+Freeway+CCTV+Camera+Upgrades&rft.au=Silver%2C+Maria&rft.aulast=Silver&rft.aufirst=Maria&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Multicast Flooding Impact on Wireless and Fiber CCTV Camera Communication for Minnesota/DOT T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41790967; 5059779 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Starr, Ray Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, Minnesota KW - Flooding KW - Communication KW - Fibers KW - Cameras KW - Environmental effects KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41790967?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Multicast+Flooding+Impact+on+Wireless+and+Fiber+CCTV+Camera+Communication+for+Minnesota%2FDOT&rft.au=Starr%2C+Ray&rft.aulast=Starr&rft.aufirst=Ray&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - ITS Challenges and Solutions for Small and Medium Agencies T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41789151; 5060073 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Glazer, Jesse Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41789151?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=ITS+Challenges+and+Solutions+for+Small+and+Medium+Agencies&rft.au=Glazer%2C+Jesse&rft.aulast=Glazer&rft.aufirst=Jesse&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - New York City's Advanced Transportation Controller Program: Design and Project Management Challenges T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41785811; 5060332 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Khashashina, Rami Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, New York, New York City KW - Urban areas KW - Transportation KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41785811?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=New+York+City%27s+Advanced+Transportation+Controller+Program%3A+Design+and+Project+Management+Challenges&rft.au=Khashashina%2C+Rami&rft.aulast=Khashashina&rft.aufirst=Rami&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Design and Implementation of Automated Vehicle Location and Maintenance Decision Support System T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41785496; 5059638 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Starr, Ray Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Artificial intelligence KW - Decision support systems KW - Automation KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41785496?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Design+and+Implementation+of+Automated+Vehicle+Location+and+Maintenance+Decision+Support+System&rft.au=Starr%2C+Ray&rft.aulast=Starr&rft.aufirst=Ray&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Benefi ts of Development and Use of the New York City Subregional ITS Architecture T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41785446; 5059633 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - O'Connor, Arthur Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, New York, New York City KW - Urban areas KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41785446?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Benefi+ts+of+Development+and+Use+of+the+New+York+City+Subregional+ITS+Architecture&rft.au=O%27Connor%2C+Arthur&rft.aulast=O%27Connor&rft.aufirst=Arthur&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The I-10 National Freight Corridor: A New Corridor for the Future T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41784554; 5059988 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Akridge, Mike Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41784554?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=The+I-10+National+Freight+Corridor%3A+A+New+Corridor+for+the+Future&rft.au=Akridge%2C+Mike&rft.aulast=Akridge&rft.aufirst=Mike&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Iowa Rural Regional Public Transit ITS Deployment Experience T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41784505; 5059971 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Krause, Bob Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, Iowa KW - Rural areas KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41784505?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=The+Iowa+Rural+Regional+Public+Transit+ITS+Deployment+Experience&rft.au=Krause%2C+Bob&rft.aulast=Krause&rft.aufirst=Bob&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Use of Advanced Performance Assessment and Evaluation Methods in Corridor System Management Planning T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41783226; 5060325 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Alm, Erik Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Performance assessment KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41783226?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Use+of+Advanced+Performance+Assessment+and+Evaluation+Methods+in+Corridor+System+Management+Planning&rft.au=Alm%2C+Erik&rft.aulast=Alm&rft.aufirst=Erik&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - New York State/I-95 Corridor Coalition's Commercial Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (CVII) Program T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41782477; 5059742 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - McDonough, Richard Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, New York KW - Infrastructure KW - Integration KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41782477?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=New+York+State%2FI-95+Corridor+Coalition%27s+Commercial+Vehicle+Infrastructure+Integration+%28CVII%29+Program&rft.au=McDonough%2C+Richard&rft.aulast=McDonough&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Will Policy Trump Technology? Findings from the Federal Highway Administration Rural Interstate Corridor Communications Study T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41782269; 5059871 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Pol, James Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Rural areas KW - Communication KW - Highways KW - Technology KW - Policies KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41782269?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Will+Policy+Trump+Technology%3F+Findings+from+the+Federal+Highway+Administration+Rural+Interstate+Corridor+Communications+Study&rft.au=Pol%2C+James&rft.aulast=Pol&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - ITS and Traffi c Control Strategies in New York City T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41780296; 5059632 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Talas, Mohamad Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, New York, New York City KW - Urban areas KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41780296?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=ITS+and+Traffi+c+Control+Strategies+in+New+York+City&rft.au=Talas%2C+Mohamad&rft.aulast=Talas&rft.aufirst=Mohamad&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Building an Extensive and Responsive Network for Supporting the ITS Workforce T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41779353; 5059831 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Dodge, Linda Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41779353?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Building+an+Extensive+and+Responsive+Network+for+Supporting+the+ITS+Workforce&rft.au=Dodge%2C+Linda&rft.aulast=Dodge&rft.aufirst=Linda&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Telecommunications Industry's View of Public Sector Transportation Infrastructure T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41778387; 5060334 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Pol, James Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Telecommunications KW - Transportation KW - Public sector KW - Infrastructure KW - Communication systems KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41778387?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=The+Telecommunications+Industry%27s+View+of+Public+Sector+Transportation+Infrastructure&rft.au=Pol%2C+James&rft.aulast=Pol&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Arizona E-VII Program Overview T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41777932; 5059651 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Saleem, Faisal Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, Arizona KW - Reviews KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41777932?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Arizona+E-VII+Program+Overview&rft.au=Saleem%2C+Faisal&rft.aulast=Saleem&rft.aufirst=Faisal&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Congestion Pricing: Where Do We Go from Here? T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41777903; 5059916 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - DeCorla-Souza, Patrick Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Pricing KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41777903?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Congestion+Pricing%3A+Where+Do+We+Go+from+Here%3F&rft.au=DeCorla-Souza%2C+Patrick&rft.aulast=DeCorla-Souza&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Virginia Lane Reversal Exercise Performed on May 20, 2007 T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41777747; 5059886 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Cogburn, Perry Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - USA, Virginia KW - Physical training KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41777747?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Virginia+Lane+Reversal+Exercise+Performed+on+May+20%2C+2007&rft.au=Cogburn%2C+Perry&rft.aulast=Cogburn&rft.aufirst=Perry&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Tiger Lessons Learned T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41776491; 5060029 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Starr, Ray Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41776491?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Tiger+Lessons+Learned&rft.au=Starr%2C+Ray&rft.aulast=Starr&rft.aufirst=Ray&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Assessment and Demonstration of Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Technology as a Pre-Screening Tool T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41776338; 5059983 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Galvin, Brian Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Technology KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41776338?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Assessment+and+Demonstration+of+Weigh-in-Motion+%28WIM%29+Technology+as+a+Pre-Screening+Tool&rft.au=Galvin%2C+Brian&rft.aulast=Galvin&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Open Source General Public License Traffi c Management Software T2 - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AN - 41774827; 5059892 JF - 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems AU - Kranig, James Y1 - 2008/11/16/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 16 KW - Computer programs KW - Software KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41774827?accountid=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=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.atitle=Open+Source+General+Public+License+Traffi+c+Management+Software&rft.au=Kranig%2C+James&rft.aulast=Kranig&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2008-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=15th+World+Congress+on+Intelligent+Transport+Systems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://itswc2008.ntpshowsites.com/images/Final_Program_PDFs/FinalProgr am.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 102 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255804; 14462-0_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 102 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 28 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255803; 14462-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 93 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255516; 14462-0_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 93 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 91 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255514; 14462-0_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 91 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 86 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255513; 14462-0_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 86 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 72 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255512; 14462-0_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 72 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 71 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255511; 14462-0_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 71 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 18 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255510; 14462-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 17 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255509; 14462-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 10 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255507; 14462-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 6 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255506; 14462-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 5 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255505; 14462-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 90 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255496; 14462-0_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 90 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 83 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255494; 14462-0_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 83 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 70 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255493; 14462-0_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 70 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 69 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255492; 14462-0_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 69 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 16 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255491; 14462-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 9 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255489; 14462-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 8 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255488; 14462-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 4 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255487; 14462-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 3 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255486; 14462-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 114 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255374; 14462-0_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 114 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 113 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255369; 14462-0_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 113 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 52 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255354; 14462-0_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 43 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255350; 14462-0_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 88 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255146; 14462-0_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 88 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 87 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255145; 14462-0_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 87 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 75 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255141; 14462-0_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 75 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 14 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255130; 14462-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 13 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255119; 14462-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 7 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255109; 14462-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 120 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254464; 14462-0_0120 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 120 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 119 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254459; 14462-0_0119 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 119 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 59 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254451; 14462-0_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 59 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 54 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254443; 14462-0_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 47 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254434; 14462-0_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 116 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254407; 14462-0_0116 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 116 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 115 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254405; 14462-0_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 115 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 57 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254403; 14462-0_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 56 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254401; 14462-0_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 48 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254400; 14462-0_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 118 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254344; 14462-0_0118 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 118 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 117 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254342; 14462-0_0117 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 117 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 61 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254341; 14462-0_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 58 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254338; 14462-0_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 50 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254337; 14462-0_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 49 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254334; 14462-0_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 46 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254331; 14462-0_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 42 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254329; 14462-0_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 41 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254326; 14462-0_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 89 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253993; 14462-0_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 89 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 85 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253992; 14462-0_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 85 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 80 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253991; 14462-0_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 80 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 79 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253990; 14462-0_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 79 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 78 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253989; 14462-0_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 78 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 74 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253988; 14462-0_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 74 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 19 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253987; 14462-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 68 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253981; 14462-0_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 68 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 65 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253980; 14462-0_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 65 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 51 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253979; 14462-0_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 96 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253248; 14462-0_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 96 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 95 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253247; 14462-0_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 95 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 22 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253246; 14462-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 21 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253241; 14462-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 109 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253114; 14462-0_0109 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 109 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 108 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253110; 14462-0_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 108 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 37 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253104; 14462-0_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 33 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253100; 14462-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 112 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252235; 14462-0_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 112 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 105 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252234; 14462-0_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 105 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 30 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252222; 14462-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 94 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252124; 14462-0_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 94 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 82 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252116; 14462-0_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 82 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 81 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252110; 14462-0_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 81 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 77 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252104; 14462-0_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 77 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 76 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252093; 14462-0_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 76 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 12 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252089; 14462-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 2 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252088; 14462-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 103 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251946; 14462-0_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 103 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 101 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251945; 14462-0_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 101 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 100 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251944; 14462-0_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 100 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 97 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251943; 14462-0_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 97 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 36 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251942; 14462-0_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 27 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251940; 14462-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 26 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251939; 14462-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 23 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251938; 14462-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 60 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251785; 14462-0_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 67 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876250992; 14462-0_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 67 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876250992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 63 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876250940; 14462-0_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 63 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876250940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 62 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876250938; 14462-0_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 62 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876250938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 55 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876248798; 14462-0_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=12&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=For+the+Learning+of+Mathematics&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 107 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246797; 14462-0_0107 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 107 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 106 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246784; 14462-0_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 106 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 98 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246777; 14462-0_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 98 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 31 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246769; 14462-0_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 24 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246764; 14462-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 20 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246760; 14462-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 111 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246452; 14462-0_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 111 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 110 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246444; 14462-0_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 110 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 34 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246433; 14462-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 25 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246430; 14462-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 73 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246109; 14462-0_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 73 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 754907619; 14462 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255504; 14461-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii 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/876255504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255503; 14461-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii 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/876255503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255485; 14461-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii 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/876255485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255484; 14461-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii 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/876255484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255483; 14461-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii 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/876255483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255348; 14461-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii 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/876255348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 754907240; 14461 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii 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/754907240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825273; 13729-080463_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to launch suborbital commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0366D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080463, 1,184 pages, November 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Sonic Booms KW - Spacecraft KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825094; 13729-080463_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to launch suborbital commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0366D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080463, 1,184 pages, November 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Sonic Booms KW - Spacecraft KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825052; 13729-080463_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to launch suborbital commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0366D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080463, 1,184 pages, November 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Sonic Booms KW - Spacecraft KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 15227226; 13729 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to launch suborbital commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0366D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080463, 1,184 pages, November 7, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Sonic Booms KW - Spacecraft KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15227226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 873125512; 13726-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 13 miles of Interstate 70 (I-70( between I-25 and Tower Road in east Denver, Colorado is proposed. A component of the national interstate highway system, I70 constitutes the transportation backbone for east-west travel in the Denver region and the state, serving growing development as well as inter-regional and interstate travel. The freeway connects I-25, I270, and I-225. The area is experiencing rapid growth and development, involving substantial increases in residential and employment-related populations due, in part, the the development of Denver International Airport, which is served by the freeway. The demand from various highway users currently exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. Forecasted traffic demand will vastly exceed highway capacity in the Corridor if capacity is not expanded. Moreover, the freeway suffers from accident rates higher than the state average for urban freeways, largely due to congestion and inadequate design. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Built alternatives include the provision of general purpose lanes along the existing alignment; provision of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along with existing alignment; construction of general purpose lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor; and construction of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing I-70 viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard would be reconstructed. Depending on the build Alternative considered, estimated project costs range from $1.26 billion to nearly $2.0 billion. Annual maintenance costs range from $20.6 million to $24.6 million. All cost figures are provided in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By increasing the capacity and ameliorating infrastructure design flaws, any of the build alternatives would vastly improve traffic movements along the Corridor, generally enhancing the entire transportation network serving commuters, commercial travelers, and tourists in the Denver region. Long-distance travelers passing through Denver would also experience safer conditions and lower travel times than at present. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 198 to 435 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 18 to 93 residences, 42 to 73 businesses, and two to three community markets, with significant community impacts likely in Elyria and Swansea. Alternatives using the existing alignment would require relocation of the Denver Rescue Mission, while the new location alternatives would result in the loss of the Stockyards post office and Denver automobile impoundment facilities. Traffic-related noise levels would increase in Elyria and Swansea under the alternatives using the existing alignment, and in these communities and in Northeast Park Hill, Globeville, and Montbello under the alternatives on new alignment. Social and noise impacts would be experienced disproportionately by minority and low-income communities. From six to 34 of the 141 properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by implementation of one of the build alternatives. Of the 77 parks and recreational facilities within the project study area, only the Swansea Elementary School playground would be affected. Rights-of-way developments would also result in the loss of 219.7 to 237.7 acres of mule deer habitat, 119 to 231 acres of white-tailed deer habitat, 0.7 to 1.54 acre of riparian vegetation, and two acres of wetlands. Increased human activity and noise within the Corridor could degrade the area as habitat for bald eagle and approximately 21 acres of black-tailed prairie dog habitat would be lost; both species are federally protected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080460, Draft EIS--778 pages and maps, Alternative Maps-77 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Community Facilities KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 873125509; 13726-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 13 miles of Interstate 70 (I-70( between I-25 and Tower Road in east Denver, Colorado is proposed. A component of the national interstate highway system, I70 constitutes the transportation backbone for east-west travel in the Denver region and the state, serving growing development as well as inter-regional and interstate travel. The freeway connects I-25, I270, and I-225. The area is experiencing rapid growth and development, involving substantial increases in residential and employment-related populations due, in part, the the development of Denver International Airport, which is served by the freeway. The demand from various highway users currently exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. Forecasted traffic demand will vastly exceed highway capacity in the Corridor if capacity is not expanded. Moreover, the freeway suffers from accident rates higher than the state average for urban freeways, largely due to congestion and inadequate design. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Built alternatives include the provision of general purpose lanes along the existing alignment; provision of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along with existing alignment; construction of general purpose lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor; and construction of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing I-70 viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard would be reconstructed. Depending on the build Alternative considered, estimated project costs range from $1.26 billion to nearly $2.0 billion. Annual maintenance costs range from $20.6 million to $24.6 million. All cost figures are provided in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By increasing the capacity and ameliorating infrastructure design flaws, any of the build alternatives would vastly improve traffic movements along the Corridor, generally enhancing the entire transportation network serving commuters, commercial travelers, and tourists in the Denver region. Long-distance travelers passing through Denver would also experience safer conditions and lower travel times than at present. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 198 to 435 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 18 to 93 residences, 42 to 73 businesses, and two to three community markets, with significant community impacts likely in Elyria and Swansea. Alternatives using the existing alignment would require relocation of the Denver Rescue Mission, while the new location alternatives would result in the loss of the Stockyards post office and Denver automobile impoundment facilities. Traffic-related noise levels would increase in Elyria and Swansea under the alternatives using the existing alignment, and in these communities and in Northeast Park Hill, Globeville, and Montbello under the alternatives on new alignment. Social and noise impacts would be experienced disproportionately by minority and low-income communities. From six to 34 of the 141 properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by implementation of one of the build alternatives. Of the 77 parks and recreational facilities within the project study area, only the Swansea Elementary School playground would be affected. Rights-of-way developments would also result in the loss of 219.7 to 237.7 acres of mule deer habitat, 119 to 231 acres of white-tailed deer habitat, 0.7 to 1.54 acre of riparian vegetation, and two acres of wetlands. Increased human activity and noise within the Corridor could degrade the area as habitat for bald eagle and approximately 21 acres of black-tailed prairie dog habitat would be lost; both species are federally protected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080460, Draft EIS--778 pages and maps, Alternative Maps-77 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Community Facilities KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 873125502; 13726-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 13 miles of Interstate 70 (I-70( between I-25 and Tower Road in east Denver, Colorado is proposed. A component of the national interstate highway system, I70 constitutes the transportation backbone for east-west travel in the Denver region and the state, serving growing development as well as inter-regional and interstate travel. The freeway connects I-25, I270, and I-225. The area is experiencing rapid growth and development, involving substantial increases in residential and employment-related populations due, in part, the the development of Denver International Airport, which is served by the freeway. The demand from various highway users currently exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. Forecasted traffic demand will vastly exceed highway capacity in the Corridor if capacity is not expanded. Moreover, the freeway suffers from accident rates higher than the state average for urban freeways, largely due to congestion and inadequate design. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Built alternatives include the provision of general purpose lanes along the existing alignment; provision of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along with existing alignment; construction of general purpose lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor; and construction of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing I-70 viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard would be reconstructed. Depending on the build Alternative considered, estimated project costs range from $1.26 billion to nearly $2.0 billion. Annual maintenance costs range from $20.6 million to $24.6 million. All cost figures are provided in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By increasing the capacity and ameliorating infrastructure design flaws, any of the build alternatives would vastly improve traffic movements along the Corridor, generally enhancing the entire transportation network serving commuters, commercial travelers, and tourists in the Denver region. Long-distance travelers passing through Denver would also experience safer conditions and lower travel times than at present. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 198 to 435 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 18 to 93 residences, 42 to 73 businesses, and two to three community markets, with significant community impacts likely in Elyria and Swansea. Alternatives using the existing alignment would require relocation of the Denver Rescue Mission, while the new location alternatives would result in the loss of the Stockyards post office and Denver automobile impoundment facilities. Traffic-related noise levels would increase in Elyria and Swansea under the alternatives using the existing alignment, and in these communities and in Northeast Park Hill, Globeville, and Montbello under the alternatives on new alignment. Social and noise impacts would be experienced disproportionately by minority and low-income communities. From six to 34 of the 141 properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by implementation of one of the build alternatives. Of the 77 parks and recreational facilities within the project study area, only the Swansea Elementary School playground would be affected. Rights-of-way developments would also result in the loss of 219.7 to 237.7 acres of mule deer habitat, 119 to 231 acres of white-tailed deer habitat, 0.7 to 1.54 acre of riparian vegetation, and two acres of wetlands. Increased human activity and noise within the Corridor could degrade the area as habitat for bald eagle and approximately 21 acres of black-tailed prairie dog habitat would be lost; both species are federally protected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080460, Draft EIS--778 pages and maps, Alternative Maps-77 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Community Facilities KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 36343707; 13726 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 13 miles of Interstate 70 (I-70( between I-25 and Tower Road in east Denver, Colorado is proposed. A component of the national interstate highway system, I70 constitutes the transportation backbone for east-west travel in the Denver region and the state, serving growing development as well as inter-regional and interstate travel. The freeway connects I-25, I270, and I-225. The area is experiencing rapid growth and development, involving substantial increases in residential and employment-related populations due, in part, the the development of Denver International Airport, which is served by the freeway. The demand from various highway users currently exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. Forecasted traffic demand will vastly exceed highway capacity in the Corridor if capacity is not expanded. Moreover, the freeway suffers from accident rates higher than the state average for urban freeways, largely due to congestion and inadequate design. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Built alternatives include the provision of general purpose lanes along the existing alignment; provision of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along with existing alignment; construction of general purpose lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor; and construction of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing I-70 viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard would be reconstructed. Depending on the build Alternative considered, estimated project costs range from $1.26 billion to nearly $2.0 billion. Annual maintenance costs range from $20.6 million to $24.6 million. All cost figures are provided in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By increasing the capacity and ameliorating infrastructure design flaws, any of the build alternatives would vastly improve traffic movements along the Corridor, generally enhancing the entire transportation network serving commuters, commercial travelers, and tourists in the Denver region. Long-distance travelers passing through Denver would also experience safer conditions and lower travel times than at present. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 198 to 435 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 18 to 93 residences, 42 to 73 businesses, and two to three community markets, with significant community impacts likely in Elyria and Swansea. Alternatives using the existing alignment would require relocation of the Denver Rescue Mission, while the new location alternatives would result in the loss of the Stockyards post office and Denver automobile impoundment facilities. Traffic-related noise levels would increase in Elyria and Swansea under the alternatives using the existing alignment, and in these communities and in Northeast Park Hill, Globeville, and Montbello under the alternatives on new alignment. Social and noise impacts would be experienced disproportionately by minority and low-income communities. From six to 34 of the 141 properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by implementation of one of the build alternatives. Of the 77 parks and recreational facilities within the project study area, only the Swansea Elementary School playground would be affected. Rights-of-way developments would also result in the loss of 219.7 to 237.7 acres of mule deer habitat, 119 to 231 acres of white-tailed deer habitat, 0.7 to 1.54 acre of riparian vegetation, and two acres of wetlands. Increased human activity and noise within the Corridor could degrade the area as habitat for bald eagle and approximately 21 acres of black-tailed prairie dog habitat would be lost; both species are federally protected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080460, Draft EIS--778 pages and maps, Alternative Maps-77 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Community Facilities KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, I-79 TO MON/FAYETTE EXPRESSWAY (PA TURNPIKE 43), WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 16391119; 13722 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 15-mile-long four-lane, limited access toll road extending from Interstate 79 (I-79) near the Allegheny/Washington County border to the Mon/Fayette Expressway (Pennsylvania Turnpike 43) in Washington County, Pennsylvania is proposed. Many of the two-lane roads available for east-west travel through the project area do not meet current design standards. Congestion affects travel on all roadways serving the area. The roadway network is characterized by numerous safety deficiencies. The study Corridor for what would be referred to as the Southern Beltway has been divided into two sections, with several Alternative alignments under consideration for each; a No Action Alterative is also considered in this final EIS. The typical roadway cross-section would feature two 12-foot travel lanes flanked by 12-foot outside shoulders, and separated by a 60-foot median, which would be flanked by eight-foot inside shoulders. Depending on the alterative chosen, capital costs of the project range from $596 million to $796 million in 2007 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Southern Beltway would provide transportation mobility and safety improvements, relieve congestion, and improve east-west access and mobility in the proposed circumferential Corridor south of Pittsburg. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative chosen, rights-of-way development would require the displacement of 95 to 227 residences, three to 14 businesses, and, possibly, one community facility and one public park. Encroachment into 15 to 25 farming operations would result in the displacement of 155 to 206 acres of productive farmland. With respect to natural resources, the project would traverse 52 to 70 streams, displace 2.4 to 4.6 acres of wetlands across 62 to 117 sites, 7.7 to 23.6 acres of floodplain, 412 to 583 acres of forest, and 111 to 152 acres of rangeland. Construction workers could encounter contaminated materials at six to 10 sites along the Corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0076D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080456, Final EIS--677 pages; Plates--71 pages (oversize), Comments and Responses--246 pages, CD-ROM, November 4, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/16391119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+BELTWAY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+I-79+TO+MON%2FFAYETTE+EXPRESSWAY+%28PA+TURNPIKE+43%29%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+BELTWAY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+I-79+TO+MON%2FFAYETTE+EXPRESSWAY+%28PA+TURNPIKE+43%29%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Colleen Jollie, state tribal liaison: a story of transformational change AN - 37044531; 3815116 AB - Colleen Jollie is the state tribal liaison at the Washington State Department of Transportation. This administrative profile identifies Jollie's unique management style as a form of transformational public administration akin to the Coyote or 'trickster'-styles introduced within indigenous mythic stories from across the globe. A trickster uses his or her wiles to disrupt, refuse, and dismantle common ways that are not working in order to creatively, and at times chaotically, to build new paths. Jollie's job as lead tribal liaison in practice transformed the state agency, the tribes, and the relationships between them, creating a culture of cooperation within a context of significant political and cultural differences. The authors show that, like the Coyote, who does what needs to be done through thoughtful, multiple, creative means, Jollie promotes change that, in turn, serves both the state and the tribes. Such an innovative collaborative process is never easy, and the outcomes are not always successful, but her work has forged win-win results. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishers JF - Public administration review AU - King, Cheryl Simrell AU - Beeby, Megan AD - Evergreen State College ; Washington State Department of Transportation Y1 - 2008/11// PY - 2008 DA - Nov 2008 SP - 1142 EP - 1150 VL - 68 IS - 6 SN - 0033-3352, 0033-3352 KW - Political Science KW - Anthropology KW - Jollie, Colleen KW - Tribes KW - Washington KW - Public administration KW - Local government KW - Cooperation KW - Cultural differences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/37044531?accountid=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=Public+administration+review&rft.atitle=Colleen+Jollie%2C+state+tribal+liaison%3A+a+story+of+transformational+change&rft.au=King%2C+Cheryl+Simrell%3BBeeby%2C+Megan&rft.aulast=King&rft.aufirst=Cheryl&rft.date=2008-11-01&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1142&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Public+administration+review&rft.issn=00333352&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-12 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - 10424 567; 12996 4424; 3121 3198 3549 2688 2449 10404; 2859; 7506 5551; 455 433 293 14 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - On-Scene Intravenous Line Insertion Adversely Impacts Prehospital Time in Rural Vehicular Trauma AN - 20882777; 10236768 AB - Fatality rates from rural vehicular trauma are almost double those found in urban settings. Increased emergency medical services (EMS) prehospital time has been implicated as one of the causative factors for higher rural fatality rates. Advanced Trauma Life Support guidelines suggest scene time should not be extended to insert an intravenous catheter (IV). The purpose of this study was to assess the association between intravenous line placement and motor vehicle crash (MVC) scene time in rural and urban settings. An imputational methodology using the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System permitted linkage of data from police motor vehicle crash and EMS records. Intergraph GeoMedia software permitted this linked data to be plotted on digital maps for segregation into rural and urban groups. MVCs were defined as rural or urban by location of the accident using the U.S. Bureau of Census Criteria. Linked data were analyzed to assess for EMS time on-scene, on-scene IV insertion, on-scene IV insertion attempts, and patient mortality. Over a 2-year period from January 2001 through December 2002, data were collected from Alabama EMS patient care reports (PCRs) and police crash reports. A total of 45,763 police crash reports were linked to EMS PCRs. Of these linked crash records, 34,341 (75%) and 11,422 (25%) were injured in rural and urban settings, respectively. Six hundred eleven (1.78%) mortalities occurred in rural settings and 103 (0.90%) in urban settings (P < 0.005). There were 6,273 (18.3%) on-scene IV insertions in the rural setting and 1,290 (11.3%) in the urban setting (P < 0.005). Mean EMS time on-scene when single IV insertion attempts occurred was 16.9 minutes in the rural setting and 14.5 minutes in the urban setting (P < 0.0001). When two attempts of on-scene IV insertion were made, mean EMS time on-scene in the rural setting (n = 891 [2.6%]) was 18.4 minutes and 15.7 minutes in the urban setting (n = 142 [1.2%; P < 0.005). Excluding dead on-scene patients, mean EMS time on-scene when mortalities occurred in rural and urban settings was 18.9 minutes and 10.8 minutes, respectively (P < 0.005). On-scene IV insertion occurred with significantly greater frequency in rural than urban settings. This incurs greater EMS time on-scene and prehospital time that may be associated with increased vehicular fatality rates in rural settings. JF - American Surgeon AU - Gonzalez, Richard P AU - Cummings, Glenn R AU - Phelan, Herbert A AU - Mulekar, Madhuri S AU - Rodning, Charles B AD - From the Departments of Surgery, Center for the Study of Rural Vehicular Trauma, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama; and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC Y1 - 2008/11// PY - 2008 DA - Nov 2008 SP - 1083 EP - 1087 PB - Southeastern Surgical Congress VL - 74 IS - 11 SN - 0003-1348, 0003-1348 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - census KW - Mortality KW - Medical personnel KW - USA, Alabama KW - Computer programs KW - Accidents KW - police KW - guidelines KW - medical instruments KW - Highways KW - traffic safety KW - emergency medical services KW - Urban areas KW - Rural areas KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20882777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=American+Surgeon&rft.atitle=On-Scene+Intravenous+Line+Insertion+Adversely+Impacts+Prehospital+Time+in+Rural+Vehicular+Trauma&rft.au=Gonzalez%2C+Richard+P%3BCummings%2C+Glenn+R%3BPhelan%2C+Herbert+A%3BMulekar%2C+Madhuri+S%3BRodning%2C+Charles+B&rft.aulast=Gonzalez&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2008-11-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1083&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Surgeon&rft.issn=00031348&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - census; Mortality; Medical personnel; Computer programs; Accidents; police; guidelines; medical instruments; Highways; emergency medical services; traffic safety; Rural areas; Urban areas; USA, Alabama ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparing MOBILE6.2 and Emfac2007 Emission Factors AN - 19631898; 8841534 AB - At the top of the list of tools needed to forecast reliably any potential adverse health outcomes from proposed highway projects are, predictably, models of mobile source emission factors. A comparison of the two current regulatory models is provided: Emfac2007, developed by the California Air Resources Board for applications in California, and MOBILE6.2, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for regulatory applications elsewhere in the United States. Pollutant emission factors computed by the models are evaluated. Although the two models share the same fundamental principle--that is, emissions from motor vehicles are based on testing with correction factors utilized to account for on-road vehicle use-the models produce strikingly divergent results. MOBILE6.2 tends to predict higher emission factors for carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and benzene compared with Emfac2007. In contrast, Emfac2007 predicts higher emission factors for particulate matter (PM) of size less than or equal to 2.5 mu m and diesel PM. The reasons for these calculation differences are discussed. The implications pertaining to the evaluation of highway project alternatives are also discussed. JF - Journal of the Transportation Research Board AU - Claggett, M AU - Houk, J AD - Federal Highway Administration Resource Center, 4001 Office Court Drive, Suite 801, Santa Fe, NM 87507, USA Y1 - 2008/11// PY - 2008 DA - Nov 2008 SP - 51 EP - 57 IS - 2058 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Motor vehicles KW - Particulates KW - Nitrogen oxides KW - Benzene KW - Carbon monoxide KW - EPA KW - Transportation KW - Photochemicals KW - Emissions KW - USA, California KW - Highways KW - Volatile organic compounds KW - H 3000:Environment and Ecology KW - P 0000:AIR POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19631898?accountid=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=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Comparing+MOBILE6.2+and+Emfac2007+Emission+Factors&rft.au=Claggett%2C+M%3BHouk%2C+J&rft.aulast=Claggett&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=2058&rft.spage=51&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2058-07 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Carbon monoxide; EPA; Photochemicals; Transportation; Motor vehicles; Emissions; Particulates; Nitrogen oxides; Highways; Benzene; Volatile organic compounds; USA, California DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2058-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using the Planning and Environment Linkages Umbrella Approach to Streamline Transportation Decision Making AN - 19595424; 8841528 AB - The planning and environment linkages (PEL) umbrella approach is designed to streamline the process of project development and environmental review by encouraging agencies to take an integrated, systems perspective to support transportation, environmental, and community goals. The PEL approach provides strategies, practices, processes, and analytical tools that encompass related federal activities including linking planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), ecological and context-sensitive solutions, corridor planning, and integrated planning. When successfully implemented, the PEL approach makes the entire life cycle of a project a more seamless process, from planning to NEPA and on to design, construction, and maintenance. The PEL approach is described, federal legislation and related activities are discussed, examples of effective practices are provided, lessons learned are shared, and the reader is directed to additional resources for implementation. JF - Journal of the Transportation Research Board AU - Barberio, G AU - Barolsky, R AU - Culp, M AU - Ritter, R AD - Office of Planning and Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA Y1 - 2008/11// PY - 2008 DA - Nov 2008 SP - 1 EP - 6 IS - 2058 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Maintenance KW - Transportation KW - life cycle KW - Reviews KW - Nepa KW - National Environmental Policy Act KW - Legislation KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19595424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Using+the+Planning+and+Environment+Linkages+Umbrella+Approach+to+Streamline+Transportation+Decision+Making&rft.au=Barberio%2C+G%3BBarolsky%2C+R%3BCulp%2C+M%3BRitter%2C+R&rft.aulast=Barberio&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2008-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=2058&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2058-01 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Transportation; life cycle; Reviews; National Environmental Policy Act; Legislation; Maintenance; Nepa DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2058-01 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Approach to Development and Evaluation of Driving Cycles for Classified Roads Based on Vehicle Emission Characteristics AN - 19570323; 8841535 AB - The first objective of this study is to develop driving cycles for classified roads incorporating a vehicle's driving activities as well as emission characteristics by using the data collected by a portable emission measurement system, which was not available or has never been used in developing driving cycles. The second objective is to develop an approach to evaluate driving cycles in which the vehicle specific power, a parameter that can readily connect the driving modes with emissions, is used to evaluate how well the driving cycles can represent the driving and emission characteristics on real roads. A comparison is conducted of driving cycles developed by the proposed method versus the traditional methodology. Results show that driving cycles developed by the proposed method can better represent the emission characteristics of on-road vehicles. JF - Journal of the Transportation Research Board AU - Yu, L AU - Wang, Z AU - Qiao, F AU - Qi, Y AD - Department of Transportation Studies, Texas Southern University, 3100 Cleburne Avenue, Houston, TX 77004, USA Y1 - 2008/11// PY - 2008 DA - Nov 2008 SP - 58 EP - 67 IS - 2058 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Transportation KW - Emission measurements KW - Emissions KW - P 0000:AIR POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19570323?accountid=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=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Approach+to+Development+and+Evaluation+of+Driving+Cycles+for+Classified+Roads+Based+on+Vehicle+Emission+Characteristics&rft.au=Yu%2C+L%3BWang%2C+Z%3BQiao%2C+F%3BQi%2C+Y&rft.aulast=Yu&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2008-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=2058&rft.spage=58&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2058-08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Emissions; Emission measurements; Transportation DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2058-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 756827482; 14417-080453_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ Transit commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ Transit rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build Alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to Pennsylvania Station New York (PSNY) would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. PSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build Alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, this final draft EIS of February 2007 considers a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed Action have been estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. A March 2008 draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The Alternative would traverse a Corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed Alternative, which has been retained as the preferred Alternative in this final EIS, are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0206D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080453, Final EIS--1,375 pages, Appendices (Volume In)--617 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--631 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 756827480; 14417-080453_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ Transit commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ Transit rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build Alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to Pennsylvania Station New York (PSNY) would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. PSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build Alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, this final draft EIS of February 2007 considers a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed Action have been estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. A March 2008 draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The Alternative would traverse a Corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed Alternative, which has been retained as the preferred Alternative in this final EIS, are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0206D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080453, Final EIS--1,375 pages, Appendices (Volume In)--617 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--631 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 756827433; 14417-080453_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ Transit commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ Transit rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build Alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to Pennsylvania Station New York (PSNY) would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. PSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build Alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, this final draft EIS of February 2007 considers a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed Action have been estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. A March 2008 draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The Alternative would traverse a Corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed Alternative, which has been retained as the preferred Alternative in this final EIS, are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0206D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080453, Final EIS--1,375 pages, Appendices (Volume In)--617 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--631 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 756827413; 14417-080453_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ Transit commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ Transit rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build Alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to Pennsylvania Station New York (PSNY) would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. PSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build Alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, this final draft EIS of February 2007 considers a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed Action have been estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. A March 2008 draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The Alternative would traverse a Corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed Alternative, which has been retained as the preferred Alternative in this final EIS, are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0206D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080453, Final EIS--1,375 pages, Appendices (Volume In)--617 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--631 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827404; 14416-080452_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 756827401; 14417-080453_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ Transit commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ Transit rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build Alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to Pennsylvania Station New York (PSNY) would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. PSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build Alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, this final draft EIS of February 2007 considers a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed Action have been estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. A March 2008 draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The Alternative would traverse a Corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed Alternative, which has been retained as the preferred Alternative in this final EIS, are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0206D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080453, Final EIS--1,375 pages, Appendices (Volume In)--617 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--631 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827396; 14416-080452_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827388; 14416-080452_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827383; 14416-080452_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827380; 14416-080452_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827375; 14416-080452_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 756827374; 14417-080453_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ Transit commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ Transit rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build Alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to Pennsylvania Station New York (PSNY) would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. PSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build Alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, this final draft EIS of February 2007 considers a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed Action have been estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. A March 2008 draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The Alternative would traverse a Corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed Alternative, which has been retained as the preferred Alternative in this final EIS, are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0206D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080453, Final EIS--1,375 pages, Appendices (Volume In)--617 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--631 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827372; 14416-080452_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827362; 14416-080452_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 754904884; 14417 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ Transit commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ Transit rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build Alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to Pennsylvania Station New York (PSNY) would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. PSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build Alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, this final draft EIS of February 2007 considers a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed Action have been estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. A March 2008 draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The Alternative would traverse a Corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed Alternative, which has been retained as the preferred Alternative in this final EIS, are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0206D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080453, Final EIS--1,375 pages, Appendices (Volume In)--617 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--631 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT THE ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 15236601; 14416 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption and implementation of a master plan for the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths West Campus in Southeast Washington, District of Columbia to house the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters are proposed. Presently, the DHS is housed in approximately 70 buildings located at over 40 locations. The housing situation adversely impacts critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across components, particularly in terms of responding to significant disasters or terrorist threats. The master plan would provide for the construction of new buildings to provide 4.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of secure office space to consolidate the DHS Headquarters and its components. This would involve site redevelopment and new construction on the St. Elizabeths West Campus to house the consolidated DHS Headquarters and reconstruction of the Malcolm X/Interstate 295 interchange to accommodate a new access road for the DHS campus. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The 12 Action alternatives are the aforementioned redevelopment of St. Elizabeths West Campus, four alternatives for the reconstruction of the interchange, five alternatives for provision of an access road to the DHS campus, and two alternatives with respect to improvement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The consolidation of DHS Headquarters activities at one site, with a highly advantageous location, would help ensure the economic and operational efficiency and effectiveness of DHS operations aimed at dealing with catastrophes and terrorist operations. Now disparate agencies and offices within agencies would be gathered into one well coordinated built-to-purpose facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition and/or modification of the buildings now sited on the West Campus and construction of the interchange would result in the degradation or loss of structures and landscapes included in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. New construction at both the campus and the interchange site would displace streams and forested wetlands and alter groundwater hydrology and quality due to an increase in the extent of impervious surface. The addition of 14,000 employees to the site would place significant stress on the area transportation grid. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0088D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080452, Volume In--617 pages, Volume II, III, and IV--1,176 pages and maps, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hospitals KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Site Planning KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15236601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=DEPARTMENT+OF+HOMELAND+SECURITY+HEADQUARTERS+AT+THE+ST.+ELIZABETHS+WEST+CAMPUS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - General Services Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; GSA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERKELEY/ALBANY FERRY TERMINAL STUDY, BERKELEY/ALBANY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - BERKELEY/ALBANY FERRY TERMINAL STUDY, BERKELEY/ALBANY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827306; 14409-080445_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of infrastructure to allow the operation of a new ferry service between the San Francisco Ferry Building and the Berkeley/Albany waterfront in California is proposed. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is seeking means of augmenting the capacity of transportation options for crossing the San Francisco Bay, which is limited by the throughput constraints of the Bay Bridge and Transbay Tube. The existing system is vulnerable to emergency situations, particularly earthquakes that could obstruct or close the use of these two facilities. Current transbay traffic levels have resulted in periods of excessive congestion along both routes. This draft EIS considers four Action alternatives, differing with respect to the location of terminal facilities, and a No Action Alternatives. Alternative A would locate the terminal at the Berkeley Marina, adjacent to Hornblower Dock. The dredging of 57.8 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 110,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative B would locate the terminal between the landside end of the Berkeley Fishing Pier and His Lordships Restaurant. The dredging of 59.2 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 150,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative C would locate the terminal immediately north of the foot of Gilman Street, adjacent to the Golden Gate fields horse stables. The dredging of 48 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 240,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative D would locate the terminal on the old pier site at the foot of Buchanan Street, adjacent to Golden Gate Fields. The dredging of 42.8 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 280,000 cubic yards of sediments. Sites A, B, and C lie within the City of Berkeley; Site D is located in Albany. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of a ferry service along the Berkeley/Albany waterfront would enhance mobility and transportation choices of East Bay residents and respond to the aforementioned deficiencies in the transbay transportation network. The volume of private automobiles crossing the bay would decline substantially, reducing traffic congestion and the related air pollutant emissions in a region that has failed to meet federal and state air quality standards with respect to ozone and state standards with respect to particulate matter. Public access between San Francisco and the Eastshore State Park, the Bay Trail, and points of recreational interest would improve substantially. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ferry movements could disturb foraging and resting marine mammals. Eelgrass would be displaced during construction, but a mitigation pilot project would result in a net gain in eelgrass habitat. Dredging could adversely impact the federally protected California least tern, as well as herring spawning and could remove native oyster beds. Dredging could also affect protected species of fish, including central California steelhead, winter run chinook salmon, and green sturgeon. Sensitive shorelines and the related ecosystems within the North Basin could be eroded by ferry wakes. Dredging could degrade water quality through mobilization of contaminated sediments. The availability of ferry service could substantially increase congestion at up to eight intersections in the vicinity of the terminal. Surface parking for nearby businesses could be displaced. Construction and operation of the terminal at the Alternative C site would impact Eastshore State Park. The terminal would lie within a seismically active zone. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080445, 531 pages and maps, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Earthquakes KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Navigation KW - Parks KW - Particulates KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERKELEY%2FALBANY+FERRY+TERMINAL+STUDY%2C+BERKELEY%2FALBANY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERKELEY%2FALBANY+FERRY+TERMINAL+STUDY%2C+BERKELEY%2FALBANY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERKELEY/ALBANY FERRY TERMINAL STUDY, BERKELEY/ALBANY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - BERKELEY/ALBANY FERRY TERMINAL STUDY, BERKELEY/ALBANY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827296; 14409-080445_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of infrastructure to allow the operation of a new ferry service between the San Francisco Ferry Building and the Berkeley/Albany waterfront in California is proposed. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is seeking means of augmenting the capacity of transportation options for crossing the San Francisco Bay, which is limited by the throughput constraints of the Bay Bridge and Transbay Tube. The existing system is vulnerable to emergency situations, particularly earthquakes that could obstruct or close the use of these two facilities. Current transbay traffic levels have resulted in periods of excessive congestion along both routes. This draft EIS considers four Action alternatives, differing with respect to the location of terminal facilities, and a No Action Alternatives. Alternative A would locate the terminal at the Berkeley Marina, adjacent to Hornblower Dock. The dredging of 57.8 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 110,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative B would locate the terminal between the landside end of the Berkeley Fishing Pier and His Lordships Restaurant. The dredging of 59.2 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 150,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative C would locate the terminal immediately north of the foot of Gilman Street, adjacent to the Golden Gate fields horse stables. The dredging of 48 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 240,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative D would locate the terminal on the old pier site at the foot of Buchanan Street, adjacent to Golden Gate Fields. The dredging of 42.8 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 280,000 cubic yards of sediments. Sites A, B, and C lie within the City of Berkeley; Site D is located in Albany. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of a ferry service along the Berkeley/Albany waterfront would enhance mobility and transportation choices of East Bay residents and respond to the aforementioned deficiencies in the transbay transportation network. The volume of private automobiles crossing the bay would decline substantially, reducing traffic congestion and the related air pollutant emissions in a region that has failed to meet federal and state air quality standards with respect to ozone and state standards with respect to particulate matter. Public access between San Francisco and the Eastshore State Park, the Bay Trail, and points of recreational interest would improve substantially. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ferry movements could disturb foraging and resting marine mammals. Eelgrass would be displaced during construction, but a mitigation pilot project would result in a net gain in eelgrass habitat. Dredging could adversely impact the federally protected California least tern, as well as herring spawning and could remove native oyster beds. Dredging could also affect protected species of fish, including central California steelhead, winter run chinook salmon, and green sturgeon. Sensitive shorelines and the related ecosystems within the North Basin could be eroded by ferry wakes. Dredging could degrade water quality through mobilization of contaminated sediments. The availability of ferry service could substantially increase congestion at up to eight intersections in the vicinity of the terminal. Surface parking for nearby businesses could be displaced. Construction and operation of the terminal at the Alternative C site would impact Eastshore State Park. The terminal would lie within a seismically active zone. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080445, 531 pages and maps, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Earthquakes KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Navigation KW - Parks KW - Particulates KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERKELEY%2FALBANY+FERRY+TERMINAL+STUDY%2C+BERKELEY%2FALBANY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERKELEY%2FALBANY+FERRY+TERMINAL+STUDY%2C+BERKELEY%2FALBANY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERKELEY/ALBANY FERRY TERMINAL STUDY, BERKELEY/ALBANY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754904675; 14409 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of infrastructure to allow the operation of a new ferry service between the San Francisco Ferry Building and the Berkeley/Albany waterfront in California is proposed. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is seeking means of augmenting the capacity of transportation options for crossing the San Francisco Bay, which is limited by the throughput constraints of the Bay Bridge and Transbay Tube. The existing system is vulnerable to emergency situations, particularly earthquakes that could obstruct or close the use of these two facilities. Current transbay traffic levels have resulted in periods of excessive congestion along both routes. This draft EIS considers four Action alternatives, differing with respect to the location of terminal facilities, and a No Action Alternatives. Alternative A would locate the terminal at the Berkeley Marina, adjacent to Hornblower Dock. The dredging of 57.8 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 110,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative B would locate the terminal between the landside end of the Berkeley Fishing Pier and His Lordships Restaurant. The dredging of 59.2 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 150,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative C would locate the terminal immediately north of the foot of Gilman Street, adjacent to the Golden Gate fields horse stables. The dredging of 48 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 240,000 cubic yards of sediments. Alternative D would locate the terminal on the old pier site at the foot of Buchanan Street, adjacent to Golden Gate Fields. The dredging of 42.8 acres for the navigation basin and access/egress channel would require the removal of 280,000 cubic yards of sediments. Sites A, B, and C lie within the City of Berkeley; Site D is located in Albany. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of a ferry service along the Berkeley/Albany waterfront would enhance mobility and transportation choices of East Bay residents and respond to the aforementioned deficiencies in the transbay transportation network. The volume of private automobiles crossing the bay would decline substantially, reducing traffic congestion and the related air pollutant emissions in a region that has failed to meet federal and state air quality standards with respect to ozone and state standards with respect to particulate matter. Public access between San Francisco and the Eastshore State Park, the Bay Trail, and points of recreational interest would improve substantially. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ferry movements could disturb foraging and resting marine mammals. Eelgrass would be displaced during construction, but a mitigation pilot project would result in a net gain in eelgrass habitat. Dredging could adversely impact the federally protected California least tern, as well as herring spawning and could remove native oyster beds. Dredging could also affect protected species of fish, including central California steelhead, winter run chinook salmon, and green sturgeon. Sensitive shorelines and the related ecosystems within the North Basin could be eroded by ferry wakes. Dredging could degrade water quality through mobilization of contaminated sediments. The availability of ferry service could substantially increase congestion at up to eight intersections in the vicinity of the terminal. Surface parking for nearby businesses could be displaced. Construction and operation of the terminal at the Alternative C site would impact Eastshore State Park. The terminal would lie within a seismically active zone. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080445, 531 pages and maps, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Earthquakes KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Navigation KW - Parks KW - Particulates KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904675?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERKELEY%2FALBANY+FERRY+TERMINAL+STUDY%2C+BERKELEY%2FALBANY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERKELEY%2FALBANY+FERRY+TERMINAL+STUDY%2C+BERKELEY%2FALBANY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SELLWOOD BRIDGE, SE TACOMA STREET AND OREGON STATE HIGHWAY 43, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SELLWOOD BRIDGE, SE TACOMA STREET AND OREGON STATE HIGHWAY 43, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 756827478; 14405-080441_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Sellwood Bridge over the Williamette River in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon is proposed. The bridge connects Southeast Tacoma Street at the east end with Oregon Highway 43 (Southwest Macadam Avenue) at the west end. The existing bridge suffers from inadequate structural integrity to accommodate the various vehicle types using the crossing safely; a lack of appropriate seismic resistance; substandard roadway design and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and an inadequate capacity for the level of traffic crossing the river at this point. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, which would simply maintain and repair the existing bridge, are considered in this draft EIS. Build Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing structure and add a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north of the existing bridge; the existing structure would be closed during construction. Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing structure and widen it on the north side; a temporary detour bridge would be provided to keep the river crossing open during construction. Alternative C would replace the existing structure with a double-deck bridge on the existing alignment; the river crossing would be closed during construction. Alternative D would construct a wider replacement bridge on the existing alignment; the river crossing would remain open during construction. Alternative E would replace the existing structure on a new alignment to the north; the river crossing would remain open during construction. Cost of the No-Build Alternative is estimated at $54 million; cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $280 million to $361 million. Construction of a build Alternative would require three to four years; a commencement date for the project has not been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the existing structure would bring its design and engineering closer to contemporary standards of safety and efficiency. Widening or rebuilding the structure would provide for increased crossing capacity and far better roadway geometrics. Water quality in the Williamette River would improve significantly due to improved drainage from the rehabilitated bridge or a replacement structure. From 0.1 to 0.3 acres of noxious weeds would be removed during construction. Build alternatives would employ from 30 to 216 construction workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build Alternative chosen, rights-of-way development would require acquisition of 10.5 to 11.6 acres of new land would result in the displacement of one to six residences and nine to 48 businesses, and 3.8 to 4.3 acres of parkland, trail, and other recreational land at five to eight sites. Overall rights-of-way development, including the development of existing rights-of-way, would result in the loss of 8.8 to 9.6 acres of lowland conifer-hardwood forest, and 0.5 to 0.6 acre of riparian habitat and would disturb 0.1 acre of wetlands and 18.9 to 20.8 acres of wildlife habitat. Three sites eligible for, or already listed in, the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted; Sellwood Bridge is eligible for inclusion in the register; hence, any alteration of the bridge would affect an historically significant structure. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 to 25 sensitive receptor sites. One church would be affected by an increase in noise levels. Construction workers would encounter six to 10 hazardous waste sites. Under three of the build alternatives, traffic crossing the river at the point of the bridge would be detoured for 24 to 42 months; the No-Build Alternative would require detouring traffic for eight months. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080441, 476 pages, October 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-08-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SELLWOOD+BRIDGE%2C+SE+TACOMA+STREET+AND+OREGON+STATE+HIGHWAY+43%2C+MULTNOMAH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SELLWOOD+BRIDGE%2C+SE+TACOMA+STREET+AND+OREGON+STATE+HIGHWAY+43%2C+MULTNOMAH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SELLWOOD BRIDGE, SE TACOMA STREET AND OREGON STATE HIGHWAY 43, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SELLWOOD BRIDGE, SE TACOMA STREET AND OREGON STATE HIGHWAY 43, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 756827458; 14405-080441_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Sellwood Bridge over the Williamette River in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon is proposed. The bridge connects Southeast Tacoma Street at the east end with Oregon Highway 43 (Southwest Macadam Avenue) at the west end. The existing bridge suffers from inadequate structural integrity to accommodate the various vehicle types using the crossing safely; a lack of appropriate seismic resistance; substandard roadway design and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and an inadequate capacity for the level of traffic crossing the river at this point. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, which would simply maintain and repair the existing bridge, are considered in this draft EIS. Build Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing structure and add a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north of the existing bridge; the existing structure would be closed during construction. Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing structure and widen it on the north side; a temporary detour bridge would be provided to keep the river crossing open during construction. Alternative C would replace the existing structure with a double-deck bridge on the existing alignment; the river crossing would be closed during construction. Alternative D would construct a wider replacement bridge on the existing alignment; the river crossing would remain open during construction. Alternative E would replace the existing structure on a new alignment to the north; the river crossing would remain open during construction. Cost of the No-Build Alternative is estimated at $54 million; cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $280 million to $361 million. Construction of a build Alternative would require three to four years; a commencement date for the project has not been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the existing structure would bring its design and engineering closer to contemporary standards of safety and efficiency. Widening or rebuilding the structure would provide for increased crossing capacity and far better roadway geometrics. Water quality in the Williamette River would improve significantly due to improved drainage from the rehabilitated bridge or a replacement structure. From 0.1 to 0.3 acres of noxious weeds would be removed during construction. Build alternatives would employ from 30 to 216 construction workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build Alternative chosen, rights-of-way development would require acquisition of 10.5 to 11.6 acres of new land would result in the displacement of one to six residences and nine to 48 businesses, and 3.8 to 4.3 acres of parkland, trail, and other recreational land at five to eight sites. Overall rights-of-way development, including the development of existing rights-of-way, would result in the loss of 8.8 to 9.6 acres of lowland conifer-hardwood forest, and 0.5 to 0.6 acre of riparian habitat and would disturb 0.1 acre of wetlands and 18.9 to 20.8 acres of wildlife habitat. Three sites eligible for, or already listed in, the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted; Sellwood Bridge is eligible for inclusion in the register; hence, any alteration of the bridge would affect an historically significant structure. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 to 25 sensitive receptor sites. One church would be affected by an increase in noise levels. Construction workers would encounter six to 10 hazardous waste sites. Under three of the build alternatives, traffic crossing the river at the point of the bridge would be detoured for 24 to 42 months; the No-Build Alternative would require detouring traffic for eight months. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080441, 476 pages, October 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-08-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SELLWOOD+BRIDGE%2C+SE+TACOMA+STREET+AND+OREGON+STATE+HIGHWAY+43%2C+MULTNOMAH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SELLWOOD+BRIDGE%2C+SE+TACOMA+STREET+AND+OREGON+STATE+HIGHWAY+43%2C+MULTNOMAH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SELLWOOD BRIDGE, SE TACOMA STREET AND OREGON STATE HIGHWAY 43, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SELLWOOD BRIDGE, SE TACOMA STREET AND OREGON STATE HIGHWAY 43, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 756827248; 14405-080441_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Sellwood Bridge over the Williamette River in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon is proposed. The bridge connects Southeast Tacoma Street at the east end with Oregon Highway 43 (Southwest Macadam Avenue) at the west end. The existing bridge suffers from inadequate structural integrity to accommodate the various vehicle types using the crossing safely; a lack of appropriate seismic resistance; substandard roadway design and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and an inadequate capacity for the level of traffic crossing the river at this point. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, which would simply maintain and repair the existing bridge, are considered in this draft EIS. Build Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing structure and add a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north of the existing bridge; the existing structure would be closed during construction. Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing structure and widen it on the north side; a temporary detour bridge would be provided to keep the river crossing open during construction. Alternative C would replace the existing structure with a double-deck bridge on the existing alignment; the river crossing would be closed during construction. Alternative D would construct a wider replacement bridge on the existing alignment; the river crossing would remain open during construction. Alternative E would replace the existing structure on a new alignment to the north; the river crossing would remain open during construction. Cost of the No-Build Alternative is estimated at $54 million; cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $280 million to $361 million. Construction of a build Alternative would require three to four years; a commencement date for the project has not been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the existing structure would bring its design and engineering closer to contemporary standards of safety and efficiency. Widening or rebuilding the structure would provide for increased crossing capacity and far better roadway geometrics. Water quality in the Williamette River would improve significantly due to improved drainage from the rehabilitated bridge or a replacement structure. From 0.1 to 0.3 acres of noxious weeds would be removed during construction. Build alternatives would employ from 30 to 216 construction workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build Alternative chosen, rights-of-way development would require acquisition of 10.5 to 11.6 acres of new land would result in the displacement of one to six residences and nine to 48 businesses, and 3.8 to 4.3 acres of parkland, trail, and other recreational land at five to eight sites. Overall rights-of-way development, including the development of existing rights-of-way, would result in the loss of 8.8 to 9.6 acres of lowland conifer-hardwood forest, and 0.5 to 0.6 acre of riparian habitat and would disturb 0.1 acre of wetlands and 18.9 to 20.8 acres of wildlife habitat. Three sites eligible for, or already listed in, the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted; Sellwood Bridge is eligible for inclusion in the register; hence, any alteration of the bridge would affect an historically significant structure. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 to 25 sensitive receptor sites. One church would be affected by an increase in noise levels. Construction workers would encounter six to 10 hazardous waste sites. Under three of the build alternatives, traffic crossing the river at the point of the bridge would be detoured for 24 to 42 months; the No-Build Alternative would require detouring traffic for eight months. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080441, 476 pages, October 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-08-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SELLWOOD+BRIDGE%2C+SE+TACOMA+STREET+AND+OREGON+STATE+HIGHWAY+43%2C+MULTNOMAH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SELLWOOD+BRIDGE%2C+SE+TACOMA+STREET+AND+OREGON+STATE+HIGHWAY+43%2C+MULTNOMAH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SELLWOOD BRIDGE, SE TACOMA STREET AND OREGON STATE HIGHWAY 43, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 754904698; 14405 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Sellwood Bridge over the Williamette River in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon is proposed. The bridge connects Southeast Tacoma Street at the east end with Oregon Highway 43 (Southwest Macadam Avenue) at the west end. The existing bridge suffers from inadequate structural integrity to accommodate the various vehicle types using the crossing safely; a lack of appropriate seismic resistance; substandard roadway design and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and an inadequate capacity for the level of traffic crossing the river at this point. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, which would simply maintain and repair the existing bridge, are considered in this draft EIS. Build Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing structure and add a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north of the existing bridge; the existing structure would be closed during construction. Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing structure and widen it on the north side; a temporary detour bridge would be provided to keep the river crossing open during construction. Alternative C would replace the existing structure with a double-deck bridge on the existing alignment; the river crossing would be closed during construction. Alternative D would construct a wider replacement bridge on the existing alignment; the river crossing would remain open during construction. Alternative E would replace the existing structure on a new alignment to the north; the river crossing would remain open during construction. Cost of the No-Build Alternative is estimated at $54 million; cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $280 million to $361 million. Construction of a build Alternative would require three to four years; a commencement date for the project has not been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the existing structure would bring its design and engineering closer to contemporary standards of safety and efficiency. Widening or rebuilding the structure would provide for increased crossing capacity and far better roadway geometrics. Water quality in the Williamette River would improve significantly due to improved drainage from the rehabilitated bridge or a replacement structure. From 0.1 to 0.3 acres of noxious weeds would be removed during construction. Build alternatives would employ from 30 to 216 construction workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build Alternative chosen, rights-of-way development would require acquisition of 10.5 to 11.6 acres of new land would result in the displacement of one to six residences and nine to 48 businesses, and 3.8 to 4.3 acres of parkland, trail, and other recreational land at five to eight sites. Overall rights-of-way development, including the development of existing rights-of-way, would result in the loss of 8.8 to 9.6 acres of lowland conifer-hardwood forest, and 0.5 to 0.6 acre of riparian habitat and would disturb 0.1 acre of wetlands and 18.9 to 20.8 acres of wildlife habitat. Three sites eligible for, or already listed in, the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted; Sellwood Bridge is eligible for inclusion in the register; hence, any alteration of the bridge would affect an historically significant structure. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 to 25 sensitive receptor sites. One church would be affected by an increase in noise levels. Construction workers would encounter six to 10 hazardous waste sites. Under three of the build alternatives, traffic crossing the river at the point of the bridge would be detoured for 24 to 42 months; the No-Build Alternative would require detouring traffic for eight months. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080441, 476 pages, October 28, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-08-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SELLWOOD+BRIDGE%2C+SE+TACOMA+STREET+AND+OREGON+STATE+HIGHWAY+43%2C+MULTNOMAH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SELLWOOD+BRIDGE%2C+SE+TACOMA+STREET+AND+OREGON+STATE+HIGHWAY+43%2C+MULTNOMAH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827498; 14400-080436_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827497; 14400-080436_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827488; 14400-080436_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827485; 14400-080436_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827484; 14400-080436_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827448; 14400-080436_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827443; 14400-080436_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827423; 14402-080438_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Doyle Drive (Route 101) to improve south access to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, San Francisco County, California is proposed. The bridge connects San Francisco and Marin counties across the San Francisco Bay. The roadway also provides limited access to the Presidio of San Francisco. Doyle Drive is located within the Presidio, a national historic landmark, providing access to such cultural and natural features as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Presidio, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Existing Doyle Drive, which was constructed nearly 70 years ago, is currently nearing the end of its useful life. Regular maintenance, seismic retrofitting, and rehabilitation activities have kept the structure safe, but a long-term solution to these problems is necessary. The eastern portion of the Corridor is located in a Liquefaction zone. Action A No-Build Alterative and two build alterative are considered in this final EIS. The first action alternative, which would involve reconstruction of the existing facility, would replace the 1,519-foot high viaduct and the 3,730-foot long, low viaduct with wider structures that would meet the current seismic and structural design standards. The second Action Alternative would replace the existing facility with a new six-lane parkway, with an eastbound auxiliary lane, extending between the Park Presidio six-lane facility and the new Presidio access at Girard Road. The new facility would consist of two 11-foot lanes and one 12-foot outside lane in each direction, with 9.75-foot outside shoulders and five-foot inside shoulders. In addition, an 11-foot auxiliary lane would run along southbound Doyle Drive from the Park Presidio interchange to the Girard Road exit ramp. The width of the proposed landscaped median would vary from 16 feet to 41 feet. The Veterans Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured. Other design chances would be implemented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety of the roadway, maintaining the functions of the Doyle Drive Corridor as part of the regional and municipal transportation network. The natural, cultural, an scenic aspects of the facility would be preserved. Roadway design would minimize the impacts of noise and other pollution from the Doyle Drive Corridor on natural areas and recreational qualities at Crissy Field and other areas adjacent to the project area. Intermodal vehicular accessibility would be enhanced; a more appropriate parkway concept would replace the current design of the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the removal of one to 13 building, 1.5 to 12.6 acres of park and recreational lands, 6.75 to 52.45 acres of natural communities, and 0.54 to 0.88 acre of jurisdictional wetlands; wildlife habitat and skunkweeds and gumplants would be removed, and the Corridor would be more prone to invasion by weedy alien plant life. Under the parkway Alternative, the project would reduce the area for possible Crissy Marsh Expansion. Up to 118 additional parking spaces could be required within the local community. Area aesthetics could be marred by project structures and pavements, and the removal of existing Doyle Drive and associated and nearby features would alter the historic setting of the Presidio and the local neighborhood Traffic-generated noise would approach of exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 24 to 34 sensitive receptors along the Corridor. 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 06-0155D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080438, Comments on Draft EIS and Responses--659 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827420; 14400-080436_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827407; 14400-080436_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 14 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827391; 14400-080436_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827382; 14400-080436_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827344; 14400-080436_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827329; 14400-080436_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 14] T2 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 756827316; 14400-080436_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/756827316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827301; 14402-080438_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Doyle Drive (Route 101) to improve south access to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, San Francisco County, California is proposed. The bridge connects San Francisco and Marin counties across the San Francisco Bay. The roadway also provides limited access to the Presidio of San Francisco. Doyle Drive is located within the Presidio, a national historic landmark, providing access to such cultural and natural features as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Presidio, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Existing Doyle Drive, which was constructed nearly 70 years ago, is currently nearing the end of its useful life. Regular maintenance, seismic retrofitting, and rehabilitation activities have kept the structure safe, but a long-term solution to these problems is necessary. The eastern portion of the Corridor is located in a Liquefaction zone. Action A No-Build Alterative and two build alterative are considered in this final EIS. The first action alternative, which would involve reconstruction of the existing facility, would replace the 1,519-foot high viaduct and the 3,730-foot long, low viaduct with wider structures that would meet the current seismic and structural design standards. The second Action Alternative would replace the existing facility with a new six-lane parkway, with an eastbound auxiliary lane, extending between the Park Presidio six-lane facility and the new Presidio access at Girard Road. The new facility would consist of two 11-foot lanes and one 12-foot outside lane in each direction, with 9.75-foot outside shoulders and five-foot inside shoulders. In addition, an 11-foot auxiliary lane would run along southbound Doyle Drive from the Park Presidio interchange to the Girard Road exit ramp. The width of the proposed landscaped median would vary from 16 feet to 41 feet. The Veterans Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured. Other design chances would be implemented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety of the roadway, maintaining the functions of the Doyle Drive Corridor as part of the regional and municipal transportation network. The natural, cultural, an scenic aspects of the facility would be preserved. Roadway design would minimize the impacts of noise and other pollution from the Doyle Drive Corridor on natural areas and recreational qualities at Crissy Field and other areas adjacent to the project area. Intermodal vehicular accessibility would be enhanced; a more appropriate parkway concept would replace the current design of the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the removal of one to 13 building, 1.5 to 12.6 acres of park and recreational lands, 6.75 to 52.45 acres of natural communities, and 0.54 to 0.88 acre of jurisdictional wetlands; wildlife habitat and skunkweeds and gumplants would be removed, and the Corridor would be more prone to invasion by weedy alien plant life. Under the parkway Alternative, the project would reduce the area for possible Crissy Marsh Expansion. Up to 118 additional parking spaces could be required within the local community. Area aesthetics could be marred by project structures and pavements, and the removal of existing Doyle Drive and associated and nearby features would alter the historic setting of the Presidio and the local neighborhood Traffic-generated noise would approach of exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 24 to 34 sensitive receptors along the Corridor. 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 06-0155D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080438, Comments on Draft EIS and Responses--659 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 754908266; 14400 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) Corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties of northern Colorado is proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system. In addition, the Corridor constitutes a major link in the nationwide interstate system and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states that carries the bulk of freight through the w3stern United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on I-25 and connecting roads, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this Corridor has grown. The regional study area that encompasses the project Corridor includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives consist of two multimodal packages. Types of highway improvement considered as part of the multimodal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements under consideration include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three Alternative alignments. Termini for the I-25 highway improvements would extend from Wellington on the north to Denver Union Station on the south. Rail infrastructure would extend from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway routes on the west to US 85 on and the Union Pacific Railroad routes on the east. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety mobility and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. In general travel times would be shortened by 10 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation (rail, bus, or BRT). Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by up to 12 percent. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the Corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 24 to 59 residences and 16 to 33 businesses. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 623 to 756 sensitive receptor sites; mitigation of noise could be achieved in two to seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in moderate impacts at 167 residences. Transit-related operational vibration would affect 87 residences. Approximately 19.34 to 20.38 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, 2.01 to 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 to 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species would be affected across 283.3 to 357 acres; most o f these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The project would affect 12.8 to 13.5 acres within 12 to 16 floodplains. Of the 91 archaeological and historic properties eligible for or already included in the National Register of Historic Places, one to five would be adversely affected. Of the 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the Corridor, seven or eight would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080436, Draft EIS--1,201 pages and maps, Appendices--1,237 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Fish 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 - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/754908266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754904889; 14402 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Doyle Drive (Route 101) to improve south access to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, San Francisco County, California is proposed. The bridge connects San Francisco and Marin counties across the San Francisco Bay. The roadway also provides limited access to the Presidio of San Francisco. Doyle Drive is located within the Presidio, a national historic landmark, providing access to such cultural and natural features as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Presidio, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Existing Doyle Drive, which was constructed nearly 70 years ago, is currently nearing the end of its useful life. Regular maintenance, seismic retrofitting, and rehabilitation activities have kept the structure safe, but a long-term solution to these problems is necessary. The eastern portion of the Corridor is located in a Liquefaction zone. Action A No-Build Alterative and two build alterative are considered in this final EIS. The first action alternative, which would involve reconstruction of the existing facility, would replace the 1,519-foot high viaduct and the 3,730-foot long, low viaduct with wider structures that would meet the current seismic and structural design standards. The second Action Alternative would replace the existing facility with a new six-lane parkway, with an eastbound auxiliary lane, extending between the Park Presidio six-lane facility and the new Presidio access at Girard Road. The new facility would consist of two 11-foot lanes and one 12-foot outside lane in each direction, with 9.75-foot outside shoulders and five-foot inside shoulders. In addition, an 11-foot auxiliary lane would run along southbound Doyle Drive from the Park Presidio interchange to the Girard Road exit ramp. The width of the proposed landscaped median would vary from 16 feet to 41 feet. The Veterans Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured. Other design chances would be implemented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety of the roadway, maintaining the functions of the Doyle Drive Corridor as part of the regional and municipal transportation network. The natural, cultural, an scenic aspects of the facility would be preserved. Roadway design would minimize the impacts of noise and other pollution from the Doyle Drive Corridor on natural areas and recreational qualities at Crissy Field and other areas adjacent to the project area. Intermodal vehicular accessibility would be enhanced; a more appropriate parkway concept would replace the current design of the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the removal of one to 13 building, 1.5 to 12.6 acres of park and recreational lands, 6.75 to 52.45 acres of natural communities, and 0.54 to 0.88 acre of jurisdictional wetlands; wildlife habitat and skunkweeds and gumplants would be removed, and the Corridor would be more prone to invasion by weedy alien plant life. Under the parkway Alternative, the project would reduce the area for possible Crissy Marsh Expansion. Up to 118 additional parking spaces could be required within the local community. Area aesthetics could be marred by project structures and pavements, and the removal of existing Doyle Drive and associated and nearby features would alter the historic setting of the Presidio and the local neighborhood Traffic-generated noise would approach of exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 24 to 34 sensitive receptors along the Corridor. 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 06-0155D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080438, Comments on Draft EIS and Responses--659 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 3 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131656; 14399-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 2 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131647; 14399-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131637; 14399-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 18 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131532; 14399-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 17 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131523; 14399-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 16 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131515; 14399-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 22 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131224; 14399-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 21 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131215; 14399-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 20 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131201; 14399-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 19 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873131196; 14399-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 24 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873129861; 14399-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 23 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873129844; 14399-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 9 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873129699; 14399-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 15 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873128999; 14399-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 14 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873128991; 14399-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 8 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127933; 14399-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 7 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127930; 14399-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 6 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127921; 14399-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 5 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127913; 14399-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 4 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127907; 14399-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 13 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127722; 14399-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 12 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127715; 14399-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 11 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127713; 14399-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 10 of 24] T2 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127710; 14399-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266236; 14398-080434_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266235; 14398-080434_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266234; 14398-080434_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266138; 14398-080434_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266120; 14398-080434_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266119; 14398-080434_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266115; 14398-080434_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266114; 14398- AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 757266113; 14398-080434_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF SR 601 FROM I-10 CANAL INTERCHANGE CONNECT WITH US 49, HARRISON AND STONE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 754905006; 14399 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled highway between Gulfport in Harrison County and Wiggins in Stone County, Mississippi is proposed. Located within the southern portion of the state, the proposed State Route (SR) 601 would parallel and/or utilize segments of US 49 and would provide a bypass of US 49's most heavily congested segments, particularly the urbanized area of Gulfport northward to Lyman. Currently, US 49 constitute the primary north-south route providing access from the Mississippi Gulf Coast to points north, like Hattiesburg and Jackson. US 49 experiences congestion and related safety problems due to conflicts created by lack of access control, high volumes of traffic, and geometric roadway deficiencies. The north-south facility would extend from the planned fully directional interchange at Interstate 10 (I-10)/Canal Road intersection in Harrison County to a point 35 miles to the north in Wiggins. Eastern and western alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alterative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, during the Alternative analysis phase, it became apparent that the widening of SR 53 and SR 26 would be warranted in the future as an ancillary component of the SR 601 upgrade to provide additional roadway capacity and to improve system linkage. The estimated costs for the eastern and western Alternative are $441 million and $554 million. Accounting for the optional widening of SR 53 and SR 26, the total estimated costs of the eastern Alternative would increase to $465 million and the western alterative to $582 million. The eastern Alternative has been selected as the preferred Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: SR 601 would provide an interstate highway style facility that would greatly reduce the potential for congestion and vehicle conflicts by providing access control, improving capacity, and separating through traffic from local traffic. An improved north-south connection between Wiggins and the Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area, where two north-south interstates (I-55 and I-59) are located, would effectively extend these two freeways to the Gulf Coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred Alternative, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 87 houses, 55 mobile homes, 85 commercial units, one church, one medical facility, one institutional facility, and one school as well as 527 acres of prime farmland. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 20 houses, 10 mobile homes, four churches, one park, two schools, and seven commercial units. The freeway would traverse 28 surface waterbodies and their floodplains and displace 216 acres of wetlands. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites at nine locations. The area through which the preferred Corridor proceeds provides potential habitat for the federally protected Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, yellow-botched map turtle, and Mississippi gopher frog. 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: 080435, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, Concept Engineering Maps-39 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Schools KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754905006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+SR+601+FROM+I-10+CANAL+INTERCHANGE+CONNECT+WITH+US+49%2C+HARRISON+AND+STONE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 754904868; 14398 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Post Processing of Typical Finnish Bathymetric Data T2 - Fifth International Conference on High-Resolution Surveys in Shallow Water (Shallow Survey 2008) AN - 42092040; 4975674 JF - Fifth International Conference on High-Resolution Surveys in Shallow Water (Shallow Survey 2008) AU - Ahonen, Jarmo Y1 - 2008/10/21/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Oct 21 KW - Data processing KW - Bathymetric data KW - U 5500:Geoscience UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42092040?accountid=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=Fifth+International+Conference+on+High-Resolution+Surveys+in+Shallow+Water+%28Shallow+Survey+2008%29&rft.atitle=Post+Processing+of+Typical+Finnish+Bathymetric+Data&rft.au=Ahonen%2C+Jarmo&rft.aulast=Ahonen&rft.aufirst=Jarmo&rft.date=2008-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Fifth+International+Conference+on+High-Resolution+Surveys+in+Shallow+Water+%28Shallow+Survey+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.shallowsurvey2008.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blo gcategory&id=34&Itemid=65 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-05 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - New MBES System for S/V Airisto: Trial and Error T2 - Fifth International Conference on High-Resolution Surveys in Shallow Water (Shallow Survey 2008) AN - 42066566; 4975691 JF - Fifth International Conference on High-Resolution Surveys in Shallow Water (Shallow Survey 2008) AU - Laaksonen, Juhani Y1 - 2008/10/21/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Oct 21 KW - Innovations KW - U 5500:Geoscience UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42066566?accountid=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=Fifth+International+Conference+on+High-Resolution+Surveys+in+Shallow+Water+%28Shallow+Survey+2008%29&rft.atitle=New+MBES+System+for+S%2FV+Airisto%3A+Trial+and+Error&rft.au=Laaksonen%2C+Juhani&rft.aulast=Laaksonen&rft.aufirst=Juhani&rft.date=2008-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Fifth+International+Conference+on+High-Resolution+Surveys+in+Shallow+Water+%28Shallow+Survey+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.shallowsurvey2008.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blo gcategory&id=34&Itemid=65 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-05 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Media 101: How to Work with the Media T2 - Safe Kids Worldwide 2008: Child Injury Prevention Conference AN - 42085964; 4983683 DE: JF - Safe Kids Worldwide 2008: Child Injury Prevention Conference AU - Schreffler, Fritzi Y1 - 2008/10/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Oct 15 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42085964?accountid=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=Safe+Kids+Worldwide+2008%3A+Child+Injury+Prevention+Conference&rft.atitle=Media+101%3A+How+to+Work+with+the+Media&rft.au=Schreffler%2C+Fritzi&rft.aulast=Schreffler&rft.aufirst=Fritzi&rft.date=2008-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Safe+Kids+Worldwide+2008%3A+Child+Injury+Prevention+Conference&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.safekids.org/conference2008/program/overview.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-05 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A highway runs through it T2 - 35th Natural Areas Conference AN - 42075958; 4978901 JF - 35th Natural Areas Conference AU - Harper-Lore, Bonnie Y1 - 2008/10/14/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Oct 14 KW - Highways KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42075958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=35th+Natural+Areas+Conference&rft.atitle=A+highway+runs+through+it&rft.au=Harper-Lore%2C+Bonnie&rft.aulast=Harper-Lore&rft.aufirst=Bonnie&rft.date=2008-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=35th+Natural+Areas+Conference&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.naturalarea.org/08conference/presentations.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-05 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873126908; 13640-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873126280; 13640-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873126275; 13640-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873126273; 13640-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873126264; 13640-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873126074; 13640-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873125593; 13640-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 10 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125347; 13644-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 9 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125343; 13644-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 8 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125337; 13644-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 7 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125332; 13644-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 6 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125328; 13644-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 5 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125322; 13644-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 4 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125315; 13644-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 17 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125172; 13644-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 16 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125168; 13644-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 15 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125165; 13644-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 14 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125162; 13644-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 13 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125160; 13644-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 3 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125156; 13644-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 2 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125154; 13644-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 1 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125153; 13644-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 12 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125101; 13644-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 11 of 17] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 873125100; 13644-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873125086; 13640-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873125085; 13640-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 36349949; 13644 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this final EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and Environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080419, 766 pages, CD-ROM, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 POST FALLS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36344414; 13640 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a three-mile segment of Interstate 90 (I-90) from the Spokane Street interchange through the State Highway (SH) 41 interchange in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. This segment of I-90 serves the City of Post Falls, bisecting the City and allowing access via interchanges at (Spokane Street, Seltice Way, and SH 41, all of which would be improved under the build alternatives. SH 41 provides increasingly important regional connectivity with SH 53 to the north. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives would rehabilitate pavements and reconfigure interchanges. Depending on the action Alternative selected, the Seltice Way interchange could be removed, while retaining the grade separation structure to maintain access across the freeway. In addition a new full access interchange or simply a grade separation structure could be constructed at Greensferry Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service of traffic operations within the Corridor, and provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while giving full consideration to local roads as primary transportation corridors. Traffic flow through Post Falls would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 11.5 to 40.5 acres to highway, requiring the acquisition of 23 to 40.4 acres of new property and displacing 14 commercial and four residential buildings. One Alternative would require the relocation of a fire station, and two alternatives would reduce the number of surface parking spaces. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 30 to 31 residential sites, though this would reduce the number of affected residences by one or two. The number of noise exceedances at commercial sites would increase from eight to at least 10 and possibly 12. The extent of impervious surface within the Corridor would increase by 25.7 to 31.7 acres, increasing stormwater runoff. Approximately 20 square feet of non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. One or two historically significant architectural resource sites would be impacted, and traditional cultural properties valued by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Native Americans would be affected. Construction workers would encounter three to five hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080415, 289 pages and maps, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=I-90+POST+FALLS+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PURPLE LINE, MONTGOMERY AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36344024; 13647 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 16-mile rapid transit line, to be known as the Purple Line, extending from Bethesda in Montgomery County to New Carrollton in Prince George's County, Maryland are proposed. The line would be part of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority rapid rail transit system, known as Metrorail. The Corridor currently suffers from increasing congestion on the roadway system; slow and unreliable transit travel times due to the congested roadway system; limited travel mode options; degraded mobility and accessibility between activity centers, employment hubs, and residential areas; and degraded transit accessibility to the larger metropolitan area due to inferior connections to radial Metrorail lines and to other rail and bus services. This draft EIS considers a No-Built Alternative, a transportation system management (TSM) alternative, and six rapid transit alternatives, including light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Purple Line would connect major activity centers along the Corridor and provide direct rapid transit connections to three of the four other rapid transit lines within the Metro System, namely, Red Line at Bethesda and Sliver Spring stations, the Green Line at the College Park Metro Station, and the Orange Line at the New Carrollton Metro Station; these lines serve and District of Columbia and Virginia as well as Maryland. The line would also provide connections to the heavy rail systems of the Maryland Railroad Corporation and Amtrak as well as local bus systems. Access to jobs, recreation, and shopping would improve for users throughout the northern suburbs of the District of Columbia. The expected increase in transit ridership would improve regional air quality as well as reduce congestion. Capital cost of the TSM Alternative is estimated at $82 million. Annual TSM operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $14.6 million. Capital costs of BRT and LRT alternatives are estimated to range from $386 million to $1.1 billion and from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion, respectively. Respective annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $15.8 million to $17.3 million and from $22.8 million to $26.4 million. All dollar cost figures represent 2007 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No-Build and TSM alternatives would result in the displacement of three to 12 residential properties. Residential and commercial relocations under the build alternatives would be much more extensive. One historic site and four archaeological sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by transit construction. Moderate noise impacts would result from the transit line along the CSX rail Corridor, on Wayne Avenue, and on Arliss Street. Eleven parks, five open space areas associated with schools, and five recreational trails would be impacted by a build Alternative Aboveground sections of the transit system would intrude visually into the affected areas of the Corridor. BRT and LRT alternatives involving heavy infrastructure, including tunnels, could affect groundwater by causing a minor change in localize groundwater flow paths. Construction workers would encounter a number of the 107 hazardous waste sites within the Corridor. 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). JF - EPA number: 0800422, 209 pages (oversize, October 10, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Schools KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PURPLE+LINE%2C+MONTGOMERY+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=PURPLE+LINE%2C+MONTGOMERY+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126254; 13639-3_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126236; 13639-3_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126223; 13639-3_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126215; 13639-3_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126210; 13639-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126202; 13639-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126191; 13639-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126183; 13639-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126170; 13639-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126154; 13639-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126141; 13639-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126128; 13639-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126112; 13639-3_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126100; 13639-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126098; 13639-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126089; 13639-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126075; 13639-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126067; 13639-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126060; 13639-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126058; 13639-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126054; 13639-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126051; 13639-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126049; 13639-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126048; 13639-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126040; 13639-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126037; 13639-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126034; 13639-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126031; 13639-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126028; 13639-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126022; 13639-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126016; 13639-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126015; 13639-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126009; 13639-3_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126004; 13639-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126002; 13639-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873126002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125997; 13639-3_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125991; 13639-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125990; 13639-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125984; 13639-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125980; 13639-3_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125975; 13639-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125966; 13639-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125965; 13639-3_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125934; 13639-3_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125932; 13639-3_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125925; 13639-3_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125924; 13639-3_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125920; 13639-3_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125915; 13639-3_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125910; 13639-3_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125906; 13639-3_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125904; 13639-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125901; 13639-3_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125890; 13639-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125887; 13639-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125879; 13639-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125862; 13639-3_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125862?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 58] T2 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125852; 13639-3_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/873125852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 15 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125545; 13638-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 14 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125543; 13638-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 13 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125540; 13638-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 12 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125535; 13638-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125530; 13638-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 11 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125358; 13638-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125358?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 10 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125351; 13638-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 9 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125342; 13638-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 8 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125339; 13638-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 7 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125335; 13638-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 32 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125296; 13638-2_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 31 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125289; 13638-2_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 30 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125282; 13638-2_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 29 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125277; 13638-2_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 28 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125274; 13638-2_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 6 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125185; 13638-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 5 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125177; 13638-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 4 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125173; 13638-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 3 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125169; 13638-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125169?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125166; 13638-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 34 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125126; 13638-2_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 33 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125115; 13638-2_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 22 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125089; 13638-2_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 21 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125088; 13638-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 20 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125087; 13638-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 27 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125080; 13638-2_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 26 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125079; 13638-2_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 23 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125076; 13638-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 19 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125075; 13638-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 18 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125074; 13638-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 17 of 34] T2 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 873125073; 13638-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID COUNTY PARKWAY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36350212; 13639 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), extending from the City of San Jacinto westward to the City of Corona in Riverside County, California is proposed. The study Corridor extends from I-15 at the western terminus to State Route (SR) 79 at the eastern terminus, a distance of 32 miles. The MCP was identified as an important transportation link by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in its Riverside County Integrated Project study. County population is expected to double from 1.5 million to 3.0 million by 2020, with an expected increase in employment rolls of 115 percent. Of the two major east-routes in the County, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road, the latter is a two-lane facility with no access control operating at an unacceptable level of service and neither meet state standards for a major arterial. Seven alternatives, including two no-build alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B), are considered in this draft EIS. The No-Build alternatives differ in that Alternative 1B involves implementation of separately proposed improvements to the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road and Alternative 1A does not. All build alternatives, except one, would provide a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway. Most of the length of the Corridor would feature six lanes, with the eight-lane sections confined to interchange access and egress points. The one exception would provide for a four- to six-lane controlled-access parkway south of both Lake Mathews and Mead Valley, a six- to eight-lane controlled-access parkway between I-215 and SR 79, where it parallels Placentia Avenue and the Ramona Expressway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MCP would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east-west movement of people and goods between and through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. The facility would constitute a key transportation Corridor identified as essential as a result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives would displace single- and multi-family residential units and commercial properties, industrial sites, community facilities, farmland, open space, habitat reserves, parklands, and undeveloped lands. Property relocations and community severances would significantly degrade the character of the traversed communities, particularly Meade Valley and Perris. In both communities, impacts would have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and populations living below the poverty line. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 65 to 85 sensitive receptor sites; sound walls could be placed at numerous locations to mitigate these impacts. The project could affect two parks, one wildlife reserve, and two archaeologic sites and four historic resources eligible of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several streams and floodplains would be traversed, and 376 to 445 acres of new impervious surface would be created, significantly increasing stormwater runoff. The parkway would be subject to seismic shaking and possible liquefaction. Rights-of-way development would displace 29.7 to 67.6 acres of riparian/riverine habitat and 391.7 to 457.9 acres of other natural wildlife habitat. Habitat for the regionally significant dudleya, smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, burrowing owl, and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be displaced, as would habitat for the federally protected spreading navaretia, California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080413, 878 pages and maps, CD-ROM, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 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/36350212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MID+COUNTY+PARKWAY%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36342877; 13638 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River between the cities of Kearny and Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey is proposed to enhance the capacity of and improve operations on the structure. The existing bridge is a two-track, moveable swing-span rail bridge that was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and that began operation in 1910 as part of larger project that also included railway stations and tunnels in Manhattan and New Jersey. These major improvements made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania Railway and New York City. The bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 along the heavily used "High Line" portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which connects Newark, New Jersey and New York City. The aging bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, constitutes a bottleneck along the Northeast Corridor and also conflicts with marine traffic. Moreover, the bridge poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on the rail and highway systems, land use and social conditions, historic resources, visual aesthetics, air and noise pollution, vibration, ecologic impacts, contaminated materials, coastal zone management, and Environmental just with respect to minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges to replace the existing bridge; the Alternative differ primarily with respect to the location of the southern bridge and the type of grade-separated crossing, either track fly-over or duck-under. Action Alternative DS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative DE would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a duck-under structure for Track 5. Alternative FE would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on the existing alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Alternative FS would provide a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable southern bridge built on a new southern alignment, and a fly-over structure for Track 5. Depending on the Alternative considered, capital cost of the project ranges from $1.24 billion to $1.36 billion; construction would require 4.5 to 5.5 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any build Alternative would resolve problems associated with the capacity constraints and operational inflexibility affecting the existing crossing by replacing the aging, unreliable, and structurally deficient structure with a modern, high-capacity bridge. The current high maintenance costs and delays resulting from ongoing repairs would be eliminated. A redundant Hackensack River crossing would be provided to facilitate maintenance of the system and enhance passenger safety and security. Conflicts with maritime traffic would be minimized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way expansion would require the acquisition of 20.1 to 47.8 acres of land, including, under all alternatives, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor. All alternatives, other than DE, would require the acquisition of a four-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Corridor. Portions of Cedar Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, Riverbend Wetland Preserve, and/or Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill would be displaced. Archaeological resource sits, historic cemeteries, and historically significant architectural features, including the existing bridge, would be damaged or destroyed. During rail operations, the portion of Laurel Hill Park north of the Corridor that is within 226 feet of the Corridor would be affected by severe noise impacts. Pilings and other structures placed in the riverbed would displace benthic habitat, and the bridge would cast a shadow across benthic habitat. The project would eliminate 8.4 to 13.1 acres of wetlands, and all build alternatives would require construction within the 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter contaminated waste 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0200D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080412, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Appendix A (Engineering Alignments)--117 pages (oversized), Appendices B through E--357 pages, October 9, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PORTAL+BRIDGE+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Newark, New Jersey; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). [Part 6 of 6] T2 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). AN - 756825242; 13636-080410_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of light rail transit (LRT) service 4.2 miles from the South Sacramento Corridor Phase 1 terminus at Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River Boulevard in Sacramento, California is proposed. The South Sacramento Corridor is a major travel route extending 15 miles, at a width of five to eight miles, from downtown Sacramento south to the vicinity of the Kammerer and Grant Line roads transit system in the southern portion of Sacramento. Communities within the corridor include Southside Park, Land Park, Sierra Curtis, Hollywood Park, Oak Park, Meadowview, Pocket/Greenhaven, Freeport Manor, Valley Hi, Laguna Creek, Laguna West, Vineyard Community, and Elk Grove. This final supplement to the final EIS of February 1997 also addresses the improvement of the South Sacramento Corridor. That EIS processes resulted in the development of an 11.3-mile-long at-grade rail line along the old Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment and the Cosumnes River Boulevard rights-of-way to Calvine Road/Auberry Drive. The first phase of the project extended service 6.3 miles to Meadowview Road. Six stations, at roughly one-mile intervals, were provided during this phase of the project. An LRT satellite storage facility was placed on the west side of the LRT tracks, immediately north of the Meadowview Station park-and-ride lot. This final supplement addresses the second phase of the South Sacramento Corridor proposal, proposing the 4.2-mile extension of the system extending south and east from the terminus of the first phase at Meadowview Road to the proposed extension of Cosumnes River College. More precisely, the new LRT would extend southward along from Meadowview Road along the UPRR rights-of-way, turn east crossing the UPRR and Union House Creek, continue east to a point north of the proposed extension of Cosumnes Boulevard, cross Franklin Boulevard, follow the northern site of Cosumnes River Boulevard, turn south along the western side of Bruceville Road, and terminate at Cosumnes River College. The line extension would be accessed via stations at Morrison Creek, Franklin, center Parkway, and Cosumnes River College. Park-and-ride lots at Morrison Creek, Franklin, and Cosumnes River College would provide 50, 650, and 2,000 spaces, respectively. The LRT would operate at 10-minute headways during peak service hours and travel at a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour. Traction power substations would be located just north of the Morrison Creek Station, in the southwest corner of the Franklin Station park-and-ride lot, on the northern portion of Cosumnes River College east of Center Parkway, and in the vicinity of the tail tracks at Cosumnes River College. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative And a transportation systems management Alternative Are considered in this supplement. Capital cost of the project is estimated at $269.9 million. Operating and maintenance costs in 2030 are estimated at $275.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide passengers with through-service to and from the central business district and the city's southern communities. Surface traffic in a very congested region would be reduced, with an attendant improvement in air quality. Downtown parking demand would be reduced by 1,300 spaces. Regional criteria pollutant emissions would decline when compared to the alternatives. Four park and recreational facilities would realize direct benefits due to improved accessibility. System construction and operation would support numerous jobs and result in the creation of indirect employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements of 53.6 to 71.2 acres would result in the displacement of 14.6 acres of Cosumnes River College land, portions of a 100-year floodplain, 118.3 acres of farmland, and 0.34 acres of jurisdictional wetlands including wetlands supporting federally protected shellfish, turtle, bird, and snake species. One single-family residence could require relocation, but that would be the only socially disruptive impact of the project. Access to Cosumnes River College stadium could be reduced due to the presence of the LRT, and two recreational playing fields would be displaced by the surface park-and-ride lot at the college. Contaminated groundwater could be encountered by construction workers. Up to 340 sensitive receptor sites would experience increased noise levels due to LRT operations and 279 of these receptors could experience noise levels in excess of federal standards. Excessive vibration levels could affect 78 to 89 residences. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 07-0137D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft EIS, a draft supplement to the draft EIS, and the final EIS, see 94-0410D, Volume 18, Number 5, 96-0473D, Volume 20, Number 6, and 97-0059F, Volume 21, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080410, Final Supplemental EIS--774 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM; Responses to Comments--188 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementing Agreement--21 pages & CD-ROM; Addendum--8 pages & CD-ROM, October 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/756825242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). [Part 5 of 6] T2 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). AN - 756825237; 13636-080410_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of light rail transit (LRT) service 4.2 miles from the South Sacramento Corridor Phase 1 terminus at Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River Boulevard in Sacramento, California is proposed. The South Sacramento Corridor is a major travel route extending 15 miles, at a width of five to eight miles, from downtown Sacramento south to the vicinity of the Kammerer and Grant Line roads transit system in the southern portion of Sacramento. Communities within the corridor include Southside Park, Land Park, Sierra Curtis, Hollywood Park, Oak Park, Meadowview, Pocket/Greenhaven, Freeport Manor, Valley Hi, Laguna Creek, Laguna West, Vineyard Community, and Elk Grove. This final supplement to the final EIS of February 1997 also addresses the improvement of the South Sacramento Corridor. That EIS processes resulted in the development of an 11.3-mile-long at-grade rail line along the old Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment and the Cosumnes River Boulevard rights-of-way to Calvine Road/Auberry Drive. The first phase of the project extended service 6.3 miles to Meadowview Road. Six stations, at roughly one-mile intervals, were provided during this phase of the project. An LRT satellite storage facility was placed on the west side of the LRT tracks, immediately north of the Meadowview Station park-and-ride lot. This final supplement addresses the second phase of the South Sacramento Corridor proposal, proposing the 4.2-mile extension of the system extending south and east from the terminus of the first phase at Meadowview Road to the proposed extension of Cosumnes River College. More precisely, the new LRT would extend southward along from Meadowview Road along the UPRR rights-of-way, turn east crossing the UPRR and Union House Creek, continue east to a point north of the proposed extension of Cosumnes Boulevard, cross Franklin Boulevard, follow the northern site of Cosumnes River Boulevard, turn south along the western side of Bruceville Road, and terminate at Cosumnes River College. The line extension would be accessed via stations at Morrison Creek, Franklin, center Parkway, and Cosumnes River College. Park-and-ride lots at Morrison Creek, Franklin, and Cosumnes River College would provide 50, 650, and 2,000 spaces, respectively. The LRT would operate at 10-minute headways during peak service hours and travel at a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour. Traction power substations would be located just north of the Morrison Creek Station, in the southwest corner of the Franklin Station park-and-ride lot, on the northern portion of Cosumnes River College east of Center Parkway, and in the vicinity of the tail tracks at Cosumnes River College. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative And a transportation systems management Alternative Are considered in this supplement. Capital cost of the project is estimated at $269.9 million. Operating and maintenance costs in 2030 are estimated at $275.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide passengers with through-service to and from the central business district and the city's southern communities. Surface traffic in a very congested region would be reduced, with an attendant improvement in air quality. Downtown parking demand would be reduced by 1,300 spaces. Regional criteria pollutant emissions would decline when compared to the alternatives. Four park and recreational facilities would realize direct benefits due to improved accessibility. System construction and operation would support numerous jobs and result in the creation of indirect employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements of 53.6 to 71.2 acres would result in the displacement of 14.6 acres of Cosumnes River College land, portions of a 100-year floodplain, 118.3 acres of farmland, and 0.34 acres of jurisdictional wetlands including wetlands supporting federally protected shellfish, turtle, bird, and snake species. One single-family residence could require relocation, but that would be the only socially disruptive impact of the project. Access to Cosumnes River College stadium could be reduced due to the presence of the LRT, and two recreational playing fields would be displaced by the surface park-and-ride lot at the college. Contaminated groundwater could be encountered by construction workers. Up to 340 sensitive receptor sites would experience increased noise levels due to LRT operations and 279 of these receptors could experience noise levels in excess of federal standards. Excessive vibration levels could affect 78 to 89 residences. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 07-0137D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft EIS, a draft supplement to the draft EIS, and the final EIS, see 94-0410D, Volume 18, Number 5, 96-0473D, Volume 20, Number 6, and 97-0059F, Volume 21, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080410, Final Supplemental EIS--774 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM; Responses to Comments--188 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementing Agreement--21 pages & CD-ROM; Addendum--8 pages & CD-ROM, October 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/756825237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). [Part 4 of 6] T2 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). AN - 756825234; 13636-080410_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of light rail transit (LRT) service 4.2 miles from the South Sacramento Corridor Phase 1 terminus at Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River Boulevard in Sacramento, California is proposed. The South Sacramento Corridor is a major travel route extending 15 miles, at a width of five to eight miles, from downtown Sacramento south to the vicinity of the Kammerer and Grant Line roads transit system in the southern portion of Sacramento. Communities within the corridor include Southside Park, Land Park, Sierra Curtis, Hollywood Park, Oak Park, Meadowview, Pocket/Greenhaven, Freeport Manor, Valley Hi, Laguna Creek, Laguna West, Vineyard Community, and Elk Grove. This final supplement to the final EIS of February 1997 also addresses the improvement of the South Sacramento Corridor. That EIS processes resulted in the development of an 11.3-mile-long at-grade rail line along the old Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment and the Cosumnes River Boulevard rights-of-way to Calvine Road/Auberry Drive. The first phase of the project extended service 6.3 miles to Meadowview Road. Six stations, at roughly one-mile intervals, were provided during this phase of the project. An LRT satellite storage facility was placed on the west side of the LRT tracks, immediately north of the Meadowview Station park-and-ride lot. This final supplement addresses the second phase of the South Sacramento Corridor proposal, proposing the 4.2-mile extension of the system extending south and east from the terminus of the first phase at Meadowview Road to the proposed extension of Cosumnes River College. More precisely, the new LRT would extend southward along from Meadowview Road along the UPRR rights-of-way, turn east crossing the UPRR and Union House Creek, continue east to a point north of the proposed extension of Cosumnes Boulevard, cross Franklin Boulevard, follow the northern site of Cosumnes River Boulevard, turn south along the western side of Bruceville Road, and terminate at Cosumnes River College. The line extension would be accessed via stations at Morrison Creek, Franklin, center Parkway, and Cosumnes River College. Park-and-ride lots at Morrison Creek, Franklin, and Cosumnes River College would provide 50, 650, and 2,000 spaces, respectively. The LRT would operate at 10-minute headways during peak service hours and travel at a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour. Traction power substations would be located just north of the Morrison Creek Station, in the southwest corner of the Franklin Station park-and-ride lot, on the northern portion of Cosumnes River College east of Center Parkway, and in the vicinity of the tail tracks at Cosumnes River College. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative And a transportation systems management Alternative Are considered in this supplement. Capital cost of the project is estimated at $269.9 million. Operating and maintenance costs in 2030 are estimated at $275.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide passengers with through-service to and from the central business district and the city's southern communities. Surface traffic in a very congested region would be reduced, with an attendant improvement in air quality. Downtown parking demand would be reduced by 1,300 spaces. Regional criteria pollutant emissions would decline when compared to the alternatives. Four park and recreational facilities would realize direct benefits due to improved accessibility. System construction and operation would support numerous jobs and result in the creation of indirect employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements of 53.6 to 71.2 acres would result in the displacement of 14.6 acres of Cosumnes River College land, portions of a 100-year floodplain, 118.3 acres of farmland, and 0.34 acres of jurisdictional wetlands including wetlands supporting federally protected shellfish, turtle, bird, and snake species. One single-family residence could require relocation, but that would be the only socially disruptive impact of the project. Access to Cosumnes River College stadium could be reduced due to the presence of the LRT, and two recreational playing fields would be displaced by the surface park-and-ride lot at the college. Contaminated groundwater could be encountered by construction workers. Up to 340 sensitive receptor sites would experience increased noise levels due to LRT operations and 279 of these receptors could experience noise levels in excess of federal standards. Excessive vibration levels could affect 78 to 89 residences. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 07-0137D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft EIS, a draft supplement to the draft EIS, and the final EIS, see 94-0410D, Volume 18, Number 5, 96-0473D, Volume 20, Number 6, and 97-0059F, Volume 21, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080410, Final Supplemental EIS--774 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM; Responses to Comments--188 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementing Agreement--21 pages & CD-ROM; Addendum--8 pages & CD-ROM, October 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/756825234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). [Part 3 of 6] T2 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). AN - 756825112; 13636-080410_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of light rail transit (LRT) service 4.2 miles from the South Sacramento Corridor Phase 1 terminus at Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River Boulevard in Sacramento, California is proposed. The South Sacramento Corridor is a major travel route extending 15 miles, at a width of five to eight miles, from downtown Sacramento south to the vicinity of the Kammerer and Grant Line roads transit system in the southern portion of Sacramento. Communities within the corridor include Southside Park, Land Park, Sierra Curtis, Hollywood Park, Oak Park, Meadowview, Pocket/Greenhaven, Freeport Manor, Valley Hi, Laguna Creek, Laguna West, Vineyard Community, and Elk Grove. This final supplement to the final EIS of February 1997 also addresses the improvement of the South Sacramento Corridor. That EIS processes resulted in the development of an 11.3-mile-long at-grade rail line along the old Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment and the Cosumnes River Boulevard rights-of-way to Calvine Road/Auberry Drive. The first phase of the project extended service 6.3 miles to Meadowview Road. Six stations, at roughly one-mile intervals, were provided during this phase of the project. An LRT satellite storage facility was placed on the west side of the LRT tracks, immediately north of the Meadowview Station park-and-ride lot. This final supplement addresses the second phase of the South Sacramento Corridor proposal, proposing the 4.2-mile extension of the system extending south and east from the terminus of the first phase at Meadowview Road to the proposed extension of Cosumnes River College. More precisely, the new LRT would extend southward along from Meadowview Road along the UPRR rights-of-way, turn east crossing the UPRR and Union House Creek, continue east to a point north of the proposed extension of Cosumnes Boulevard, cross Franklin Boulevard, follow the northern site of Cosumnes River Boulevard, turn south along the western side of Bruceville Road, and terminate at Cosumnes River College. The line extension would be accessed via stations at Morrison Creek, Franklin, center Parkway, and Cosumnes River College. Park-and-ride lots at Morrison Creek, Franklin, and Cosumnes River College would provide 50, 650, and 2,000 spaces, respectively. The LRT would operate at 10-minute headways during peak service hours and travel at a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour. Traction power substations would be located just north of the Morrison Creek Station, in the southwest corner of the Franklin Station park-and-ride lot, on the northern portion of Cosumnes River College east of Center Parkway, and in the vicinity of the tail tracks at Cosumnes River College. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative And a transportation systems management Alternative Are considered in this supplement. Capital cost of the project is estimated at $269.9 million. Operating and maintenance costs in 2030 are estimated at $275.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide passengers with through-service to and from the central business district and the city's southern communities. Surface traffic in a very congested region would be reduced, with an attendant improvement in air quality. Downtown parking demand would be reduced by 1,300 spaces. Regional criteria pollutant emissions would decline when compared to the alternatives. Four park and recreational facilities would realize direct benefits due to improved accessibility. System construction and operation would support numerous jobs and result in the creation of indirect employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements of 53.6 to 71.2 acres would result in the displacement of 14.6 acres of Cosumnes River College land, portions of a 100-year floodplain, 118.3 acres of farmland, and 0.34 acres of jurisdictional wetlands including wetlands supporting federally protected shellfish, turtle, bird, and snake species. One single-family residence could require relocation, but that would be the only socially disruptive impact of the project. Access to Cosumnes River College stadium could be reduced due to the presence of the LRT, and two recreational playing fields would be displaced by the surface park-and-ride lot at the college. Contaminated groundwater could be encountered by construction workers. Up to 340 sensitive receptor sites would experience increased noise levels due to LRT operations and 279 of these receptors could experience noise levels in excess of federal standards. Excessive vibration levels could affect 78 to 89 residences. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 07-0137D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft EIS, a draft supplement to the draft EIS, and the final EIS, see 94-0410D, Volume 18, Number 5, 96-0473D, Volume 20, Number 6, and 97-0059F, Volume 21, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080410, Final Supplemental EIS--774 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM; Responses to Comments--188 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementing Agreement--21 pages & CD-ROM; Addendum--8 pages & CD-ROM, October 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/756825112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). [Part 1 of 6] T2 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). AN - 756825106; 13636-080410_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of light rail transit (LRT) service 4.2 miles from the South Sacramento Corridor Phase 1 terminus at Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River Boulevard in Sacramento, California is proposed. The South Sacramento Corridor is a major travel route extending 15 miles, at a width of five to eight miles, from downtown Sacramento south to the vicinity of the Kammerer and Grant Line roads transit system in the southern portion of Sacramento. Communities within the corridor include Southside Park, Land Park, Sierra Curtis, Hollywood Park, Oak Park, Meadowview, Pocket/Greenhaven, Freeport Manor, Valley Hi, Laguna Creek, Laguna West, Vineyard Community, and Elk Grove. This final supplement to the final EIS of February 1997 also addresses the improvement of the South Sacramento Corridor. That EIS processes resulted in the development of an 11.3-mile-long at-grade rail line along the old Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment and the Cosumnes River Boulevard rights-of-way to Calvine Road/Auberry Drive. The first phase of the project extended service 6.3 miles to Meadowview Road. Six stations, at roughly one-mile intervals, were provided during this phase of the project. An LRT satellite storage facility was placed on the west side of the LRT tracks, immediately north of the Meadowview Station park-and-ride lot. This final supplement addresses the second phase of the South Sacramento Corridor proposal, proposing the 4.2-mile extension of the system extending south and east from the terminus of the first phase at Meadowview Road to the proposed extension of Cosumnes River College. More precisely, the new LRT would extend southward along from Meadowview Road along the UPRR rights-of-way, turn east crossing the UPRR and Union House Creek, continue east to a point north of the proposed extension of Cosumnes Boulevard, cross Franklin Boulevard, follow the northern site of Cosumnes River Boulevard, turn south along the western side of Bruceville Road, and terminate at Cosumnes River College. The line extension would be accessed via stations at Morrison Creek, Franklin, center Parkway, and Cosumnes River College. Park-and-ride lots at Morrison Creek, Franklin, and Cosumnes River College would provide 50, 650, and 2,000 spaces, respectively. The LRT would operate at 10-minute headways during peak service hours and travel at a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour. Traction power substations would be located just north of the Morrison Creek Station, in the southwest corner of the Franklin Station park-and-ride lot, on the northern portion of Cosumnes River College east of Center Parkway, and in the vicinity of the tail tracks at Cosumnes River College. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative And a transportation systems management Alternative Are considered in this supplement. Capital cost of the project is estimated at $269.9 million. Operating and maintenance costs in 2030 are estimated at $275.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide passengers with through-service to and from the central business district and the city's southern communities. Surface traffic in a very congested region would be reduced, with an attendant improvement in air quality. Downtown parking demand would be reduced by 1,300 spaces. Regional criteria pollutant emissions would decline when compared to the alternatives. Four park and recreational facilities would realize direct benefits due to improved accessibility. System construction and operation would support numerous jobs and result in the creation of indirect employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements of 53.6 to 71.2 acres would result in the displacement of 14.6 acres of Cosumnes River College land, portions of a 100-year floodplain, 118.3 acres of farmland, and 0.34 acres of jurisdictional wetlands including wetlands supporting federally protected shellfish, turtle, bird, and snake species. One single-family residence could require relocation, but that would be the only socially disruptive impact of the project. Access to Cosumnes River College stadium could be reduced due to the presence of the LRT, and two recreational playing fields would be displaced by the surface park-and-ride lot at the college. Contaminated groundwater could be encountered by construction workers. Up to 340 sensitive receptor sites would experience increased noise levels due to LRT operations and 279 of these receptors could experience noise levels in excess of federal standards. Excessive vibration levels could affect 78 to 89 residences. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 07-0137D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft EIS, a draft supplement to the draft EIS, and the final EIS, see 94-0410D, Volume 18, Number 5, 96-0473D, Volume 20, Number 6, and 97-0059F, Volume 21, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080410, Final Supplemental EIS--774 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM; Responses to Comments--188 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementing Agreement--21 pages & CD-ROM; Addendum--8 pages & CD-ROM, October 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/756825106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). [Part 2 of 6] T2 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). AN - 756824803; 13636-080410_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of light rail transit (LRT) service 4.2 miles from the South Sacramento Corridor Phase 1 terminus at Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River Boulevard in Sacramento, California is proposed. The South Sacramento Corridor is a major travel route extending 15 miles, at a width of five to eight miles, from downtown Sacramento south to the vicinity of the Kammerer and Grant Line roads transit system in the southern portion of Sacramento. Communities within the corridor include Southside Park, Land Park, Sierra Curtis, Hollywood Park, Oak Park, Meadowview, Pocket/Greenhaven, Freeport Manor, Valley Hi, Laguna Creek, Laguna West, Vineyard Community, and Elk Grove. This final supplement to the final EIS of February 1997 also addresses the improvement of the South Sacramento Corridor. That EIS processes resulted in the development of an 11.3-mile-long at-grade rail line along the old Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment and the Cosumnes River Boulevard rights-of-way to Calvine Road/Auberry Drive. The first phase of the project extended service 6.3 miles to Meadowview Road. Six stations, at roughly one-mile intervals, were provided during this phase of the project. An LRT satellite storage facility was placed on the west side of the LRT tracks, immediately north of the Meadowview Station park-and-ride lot. This final supplement addresses the second phase of the South Sacramento Corridor proposal, proposing the 4.2-mile extension of the system extending south and east from the terminus of the first phase at Meadowview Road to the proposed extension of Cosumnes River College. More precisely, the new LRT would extend southward along from Meadowview Road along the UPRR rights-of-way, turn east crossing the UPRR and Union House Creek, continue east to a point north of the proposed extension of Cosumnes Boulevard, cross Franklin Boulevard, follow the northern site of Cosumnes River Boulevard, turn south along the western side of Bruceville Road, and terminate at Cosumnes River College. The line extension would be accessed via stations at Morrison Creek, Franklin, center Parkway, and Cosumnes River College. Park-and-ride lots at Morrison Creek, Franklin, and Cosumnes River College would provide 50, 650, and 2,000 spaces, respectively. The LRT would operate at 10-minute headways during peak service hours and travel at a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour. Traction power substations would be located just north of the Morrison Creek Station, in the southwest corner of the Franklin Station park-and-ride lot, on the northern portion of Cosumnes River College east of Center Parkway, and in the vicinity of the tail tracks at Cosumnes River College. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative And a transportation systems management Alternative Are considered in this supplement. Capital cost of the project is estimated at $269.9 million. Operating and maintenance costs in 2030 are estimated at $275.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide passengers with through-service to and from the central business district and the city's southern communities. Surface traffic in a very congested region would be reduced, with an attendant improvement in air quality. Downtown parking demand would be reduced by 1,300 spaces. Regional criteria pollutant emissions would decline when compared to the alternatives. Four park and recreational facilities would realize direct benefits due to improved accessibility. System construction and operation would support numerous jobs and result in the creation of indirect employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements of 53.6 to 71.2 acres would result in the displacement of 14.6 acres of Cosumnes River College land, portions of a 100-year floodplain, 118.3 acres of farmland, and 0.34 acres of jurisdictional wetlands including wetlands supporting federally protected shellfish, turtle, bird, and snake species. One single-family residence could require relocation, but that would be the only socially disruptive impact of the project. Access to Cosumnes River College stadium could be reduced due to the presence of the LRT, and two recreational playing fields would be displaced by the surface park-and-ride lot at the college. Contaminated groundwater could be encountered by construction workers. Up to 340 sensitive receptor sites would experience increased noise levels due to LRT operations and 279 of these receptors could experience noise levels in excess of federal standards. Excessive vibration levels could affect 78 to 89 residences. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 07-0137D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft EIS, a draft supplement to the draft EIS, and the final EIS, see 94-0410D, Volume 18, Number 5, 96-0473D, Volume 20, Number 6, and 97-0059F, Volume 21, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080410, Final Supplemental EIS--774 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM; Responses to Comments--188 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementing Agreement--21 pages & CD-ROM; Addendum--8 pages & CD-ROM, October 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/756824803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1997). AN - 16386052; 13636 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of light rail transit (LRT) service 4.2 miles from the South Sacramento Corridor Phase 1 terminus at Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River Boulevard in Sacramento, California is proposed. The South Sacramento Corridor is a major travel route extending 15 miles, at a width of five to eight miles, from downtown Sacramento south to the vicinity of the Kammerer and Grant Line roads transit system in the southern portion of Sacramento. Communities within the corridor include Southside Park, Land Park, Sierra Curtis, Hollywood Park, Oak Park, Meadowview, Pocket/Greenhaven, Freeport Manor, Valley Hi, Laguna Creek, Laguna West, Vineyard Community, and Elk Grove. This final supplement to the final EIS of February 1997 also addresses the improvement of the South Sacramento Corridor. That EIS processes resulted in the development of an 11.3-mile-long at-grade rail line along the old Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment and the Cosumnes River Boulevard rights-of-way to Calvine Road/Auberry Drive. The first phase of the project extended service 6.3 miles to Meadowview Road. Six stations, at roughly one-mile intervals, were provided during this phase of the project. An LRT satellite storage facility was placed on the west side of the LRT tracks, immediately north of the Meadowview Station park-and-ride lot. This final supplement addresses the second phase of the South Sacramento Corridor proposal, proposing the 4.2-mile extension of the system extending south and east from the terminus of the first phase at Meadowview Road to the proposed extension of Cosumnes River College. More precisely, the new LRT would extend southward along from Meadowview Road along the UPRR rights-of-way, turn east crossing the UPRR and Union House Creek, continue east to a point north of the proposed extension of Cosumnes Boulevard, cross Franklin Boulevard, follow the northern site of Cosumnes River Boulevard, turn south along the western side of Bruceville Road, and terminate at Cosumnes River College. The line extension would be accessed via stations at Morrison Creek, Franklin, center Parkway, and Cosumnes River College. Park-and-ride lots at Morrison Creek, Franklin, and Cosumnes River College would provide 50, 650, and 2,000 spaces, respectively. The LRT would operate at 10-minute headways during peak service hours and travel at a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour. Traction power substations would be located just north of the Morrison Creek Station, in the southwest corner of the Franklin Station park-and-ride lot, on the northern portion of Cosumnes River College east of Center Parkway, and in the vicinity of the tail tracks at Cosumnes River College. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative And a transportation systems management Alternative Are considered in this supplement. Capital cost of the project is estimated at $269.9 million. Operating and maintenance costs in 2030 are estimated at $275.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide passengers with through-service to and from the central business district and the city's southern communities. Surface traffic in a very congested region would be reduced, with an attendant improvement in air quality. Downtown parking demand would be reduced by 1,300 spaces. Regional criteria pollutant emissions would decline when compared to the alternatives. Four park and recreational facilities would realize direct benefits due to improved accessibility. System construction and operation would support numerous jobs and result in the creation of indirect employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements of 53.6 to 71.2 acres would result in the displacement of 14.6 acres of Cosumnes River College land, portions of a 100-year floodplain, 118.3 acres of farmland, and 0.34 acres of jurisdictional wetlands including wetlands supporting federally protected shellfish, turtle, bird, and snake species. One single-family residence could require relocation, but that would be the only socially disruptive impact of the project. Access to Cosumnes River College stadium could be reduced due to the presence of the LRT, and two recreational playing fields would be displaced by the surface park-and-ride lot at the college. Contaminated groundwater could be encountered by construction workers. Up to 340 sensitive receptor sites would experience increased noise levels due to LRT operations and 279 of these receptors could experience noise levels in excess of federal standards. Excessive vibration levels could affect 78 to 89 residences. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 07-0137D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft EIS, a draft supplement to the draft EIS, and the final EIS, see 94-0410D, Volume 18, Number 5, 96-0473D, Volume 20, Number 6, and 97-0059F, Volume 21, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080410, Final Supplemental EIS--774 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM; Responses to Comments--188 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementing Agreement--21 pages & CD-ROM; Addendum--8 pages & CD-ROM, October 8, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/16386052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=TRANSIT+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+THE+SOUTH+SACRAMENTO+CORRIDOR+OF+SACRAMENTO%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Soil geomorphology and "wet" cycles in the Holocene record of north-central Mexico AN - 742912473; 2010-052274 AB - The distinction between the impact of climatic periodicities or land-use practices on soil erosion is an important issue for Pre-Hispanic and Colonial Mexico. That question can best be addressed by first documenting the dynamics of changing "wet" cycles during the Holocene in the central Mexican region between the northern limits of Pre-Hispanic agriculture and its southern margins in northwestern Chihuahua. Consequently the Laguna Project targeted a 125,000 km (super 2) sector of North-Central Mexico, 250 km from north to south and 500 km from east to west, from Saltillo to Durango. Some 40 sedimentary profiles with multiple cumulic soils were studied in the field and laboratory, supported by 163 conventional (super 14) C and AMS dates on charcoal and soil humates. We distinguish: (1) wet floodplains (with humic paleosols, redox phenomena reflecting high water tables, channel-ponding sequences, and interbedded tufas) that imply aquifer recharge, sustained base flow, and mainly low-energy conditions; and (2) high-energy pulses of discharge that mobilized cobble gravels or forced channel entrenchment ("gullying") and were tied to episodic, excessive rains that promoted valley and slope instability. In between such "wet" cycles and recurrent disequilibrium events, climate was similar to today, probably less humid, with limited geomorphologic change or slow soil formation. "Wet" cycles were rare at the end of the Pleistocene, but prominent during the Holocene. Disequilibrium proxies became common and dramatic after 2500 BP. The drainages from the Eastern and Western Sierra Madres responded in phase, but varied in detail. Around AD 1050-1200 "natural" erosion led to loss of soil organic carbon, as alternating severe droughts and heavy rains destroyed the ground cover and led to ecological aridification, well before arrival of Spanish miners and settlers. The evidence that human activity triggered Pre-Hispanic or Colonial erosion in Central Mexico should therefore be re-evaluated. Global comparisons and interpretations are discussed, but with caution, since no single theory can explain the whole of the record. The soil-geomorphology geoarchive of North-Central Mexico primarily is an environmental history of alternating "wet" cycles, rather than of sustained wet or dry climates. The critical differences between "soaking" and "excessive" rains, with their respective impacts, may be due to switching between winter and summer storm categories. JF - Geomorphology AU - Butzer, Karl W AU - Abbott, James T AU - Frederick, Charles D AU - Lehman, Paul H AU - Cordova, Carlos E AU - Oswald, John F A2 - Hudson, Paul F. A2 - Butzer, Karl W. A2 - Beach, T. Y1 - 2008/10// PY - 2008 DA - October 2008 SP - 237 EP - 277 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 101 IS - 1-2 SN - 0169-555X, 0169-555X KW - cycles KW - degradation KW - isotopes KW - erosion KW - landforms KW - Saltillo Basin KW - Chihuahua Mexico KW - paleoclimatology KW - Holocene KW - Durango Mexico KW - environmental effects KW - paleoecology KW - north-central Mexico KW - Cenozoic KW - radioactive isotopes KW - dates KW - carbon KW - absolute age KW - paleosols KW - soil erosion KW - soils KW - charcoal KW - Quaternary KW - valleys KW - Sierra Madre Occidental KW - agriculture KW - Nazas River KW - Sierra Madre Oriental KW - Angostura Badlands KW - Mexico KW - alluvial fans KW - Parras Mexico KW - acidification KW - periodicity KW - geomorphology KW - C-14 KW - slope stability KW - land use KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742912473?accountid=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=Geomorphology&rft.atitle=Soil+geomorphology+and+%22wet%22+cycles+in+the+Holocene+record+of+north-central+Mexico&rft.au=Butzer%2C+Karl+W%3BAbbott%2C+James+T%3BFrederick%2C+Charles+D%3BLehman%2C+Paul+H%3BCordova%2C+Carlos+E%3BOswald%2C+John+F&rft.aulast=Butzer&rft.aufirst=Karl&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=237&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geomorphology&rft.issn=0169555X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.geomorph.2008.06.005 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0169555X LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 39th annual Binghamton geomorphology symposium; fluvial deposits and environmental history; geoarchaeology, paleohydrology, adjustment to environmental change N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Based on Publisher-supplied data N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - absolute age; acidification; agriculture; alluvial fans; Angostura Badlands; C-14; carbon; Cenozoic; charcoal; Chihuahua Mexico; cycles; dates; degradation; Durango Mexico; environmental effects; erosion; geomorphology; Holocene; isotopes; land use; landforms; Mexico; Nazas River; north-central Mexico; paleoclimatology; paleoecology; paleosols; Parras Mexico; periodicity; Quaternary; radioactive isotopes; Saltillo Basin; Sierra Madre Occidental; Sierra Madre Oriental; slope stability; soil erosion; soils; valleys DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.06.005 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 33 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125963; 13629-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 42 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125956; 13629-3_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 41 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125946; 13629-3_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 40 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125939; 13629-3_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 39 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125928; 13629-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 38 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125919; 13629-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 37 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125913; 13629-3_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 36 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125907; 13629-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 35 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125896; 13629-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 34 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125590; 13629-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 32 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125474; 13629-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 31 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125470; 13629-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 30 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125469; 13629-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 29 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125466; 13629-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 5 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125389; 13629-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125389?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 4 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125384; 13629-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 3 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125383; 13629-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 2 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125378; 13629-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125378?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 1 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125376; 13629-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 23 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125312; 13629-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 22 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125305; 13629-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 21 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125299; 13629-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 16 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125293; 13629-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 20 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125292; 13629-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 19 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125284; 13629-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 15 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125283; 13629-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 18 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125276; 13629-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 14 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125270; 13629-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 17 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125269; 13629-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 13 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125266; 13629-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 10 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125261; 13629-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 12 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125260; 13629-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 11 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125252; 13629-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 28 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125251; 13629-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 9 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125250; 13629-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 8 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125244; 13629-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 27 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125243; 13629-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 7 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125238; 13629-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 26 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125236; 13629-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 6 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125235; 13629-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 25 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125228; 13629-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 24 of 42] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 873125222; 13629-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 36349156; 13629 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton City interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This final EIS considers a No Action Alterative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alterative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives meet the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred Alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersection would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on the 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alterative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0212D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080403, 378 pages and maps, September 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-F KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 14, FROM INTERSTATE 35 TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 50 IN STEELE AND DODGE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 14, FROM INTERSTATE 35 TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 50 IN STEELE AND DODGE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 756824716; 13617-080391_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 19 miles of Trunk Highway (TH) 1 from the existing four-lane bypass of Dodge Center to the intersection of TH 14 and Interstate 35 (I-35) in Steel and Dodge counties, Minnesota is proposed. TH 14 is a major east-west highway providing important links between the interregional corridors of I-35 in Owatonna, Highway 52 in Rochester, and Highway 169 in Mankato. The corridor is characterized by growing traffic levels, particularly truck traffic levels, reduce average travel speeds, limited passing opportunities, and significant safety issues. The excising two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic it carries. Other highway characteristics demonstrating the need for an upgrade include high crash rates, a large number of direct uncontrolled access points, and the lack of system continuity. The proposed improvements would include the construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled freeway through the entire study corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Built Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would reconstruct TH 14 on the existing alignment, implementing the design described above. Alternative 3 would result in the construction of the four-lane upgrade partially on the existing alignment and partly on new alignment. Both alternatives include an option to provide a southern bypass around Claremont. Cost estimates for alternatives 2 and 3 range from $165 million to $168 million and from $143 million to $150 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 1.2 and 1.7. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded facility would maintain mobility under future traffic conditions, improve travel safety, enhance system continuity by completing a four-lane segment connecting two contiguous four lane sections, and foster economic growth along the corridor. Improved movement of traffic along the corridor could increase use of transit options in the region and improve the efficiency of transit connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 807 to 978 acres of rights-of-way, including 367 to 576 acres of new land acquisition, would displace 11 to 19 residences, up to three businesses, 584 to 757 acres of prime or unique farmland, and 15 to 17 acres of wetlands. Three to 10 public road crossings and up to three private road crossings would be closed, reducing access to the corridor. The project could impact one park and three archaeological sites and would impact 11 to 15 architectural structures, all of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The highway would add 78 to 148 acres of new impervious surface to the corridor, increasing roadway runoff and adding greater levels of pollutants to receiving surface flows. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 49 to 62 residential and nine sensitive commercial properties. Construction workers would encounter 25 to 44 hazardous waste sites. The Claremont south bypass option would 196 to 214 acres to the extent of rights-of-way necessary, resulting in the displacement of four to six residences, involvement of five to 24 more contaminated waste sites, possible impacts to three more National Register-eligible archaeological sites, displacement of 0.69 to 2.34 acres of additional wetlands, and addition of eight to 11 more residential sites at which federal noise standards would be violated. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080391, 267 pages and maps, September 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-08-03-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+14%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+35+TO+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+50+IN+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+14%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+35+TO+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+50+IN+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 14, FROM INTERSTATE 35 TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 50 IN STEELE AND DODGE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 14, FROM INTERSTATE 35 TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 50 IN STEELE AND DODGE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 756824637; 13617-080391_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 19 miles of Trunk Highway (TH) 1 from the existing four-lane bypass of Dodge Center to the intersection of TH 14 and Interstate 35 (I-35) in Steel and Dodge counties, Minnesota is proposed. TH 14 is a major east-west highway providing important links between the interregional corridors of I-35 in Owatonna, Highway 52 in Rochester, and Highway 169 in Mankato. The corridor is characterized by growing traffic levels, particularly truck traffic levels, reduce average travel speeds, limited passing opportunities, and significant safety issues. The excising two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic it carries. Other highway characteristics demonstrating the need for an upgrade include high crash rates, a large number of direct uncontrolled access points, and the lack of system continuity. The proposed improvements would include the construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled freeway through the entire study corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Built Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would reconstruct TH 14 on the existing alignment, implementing the design described above. Alternative 3 would result in the construction of the four-lane upgrade partially on the existing alignment and partly on new alignment. Both alternatives include an option to provide a southern bypass around Claremont. Cost estimates for alternatives 2 and 3 range from $165 million to $168 million and from $143 million to $150 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 1.2 and 1.7. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded facility would maintain mobility under future traffic conditions, improve travel safety, enhance system continuity by completing a four-lane segment connecting two contiguous four lane sections, and foster economic growth along the corridor. Improved movement of traffic along the corridor could increase use of transit options in the region and improve the efficiency of transit connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 807 to 978 acres of rights-of-way, including 367 to 576 acres of new land acquisition, would displace 11 to 19 residences, up to three businesses, 584 to 757 acres of prime or unique farmland, and 15 to 17 acres of wetlands. Three to 10 public road crossings and up to three private road crossings would be closed, reducing access to the corridor. The project could impact one park and three archaeological sites and would impact 11 to 15 architectural structures, all of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The highway would add 78 to 148 acres of new impervious surface to the corridor, increasing roadway runoff and adding greater levels of pollutants to receiving surface flows. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 49 to 62 residential and nine sensitive commercial properties. Construction workers would encounter 25 to 44 hazardous waste sites. The Claremont south bypass option would 196 to 214 acres to the extent of rights-of-way necessary, resulting in the displacement of four to six residences, involvement of five to 24 more contaminated waste sites, possible impacts to three more National Register-eligible archaeological sites, displacement of 0.69 to 2.34 acres of additional wetlands, and addition of eight to 11 more residential sites at which federal noise standards would be violated. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080391, 267 pages and maps, September 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-08-03-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+14%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+35+TO+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+50+IN+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+14%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+35+TO+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+50+IN+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED LINE CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 16387353; 13610 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an east-west transit line through Baltimore, Maryland is proposed. The 14-mile Red Line study corridor extends from western Baltimore County at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Woodlawn through the downtown business district to the Johns Hopkins Medical Center in eastern Baltimore City. The largest section of the corridor lies within the city and will feature much of the most significant economic growth anticipated in the region. New development in the near future could provide as much as 29 million square feet of residential, office, and commercial space in the corridor. Existing road transportation infrastructure cannot support this expected growth. Twelve alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative And 11 alternatives falling into three categories, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternative categories include implementation of transportation system management (TSM, bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, and the proposed light rail transit Systems (LRT). The six alternative BRT lines extend from 13.7 miles to 14.9 miles, while the four LRT lines extend from 13.7 miles to 14.6 miles. Capital cost of the TSM alternative is estimated at $281 million; capital costs of the BRT and LRT alternatives range from $545 million to $2.4 billion and from $930 million to $2.5 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new LRT or BRT line under consideration would improve east-west movement through the corridor, enhance transit connections throughout the city, support community revitalization and economic development opportunities; and help address regional congestion and traffic-related air quality issues. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation infrastructure for the TSM, BRT, or LRT action alternative would require the acquisition of 15 acres, 51.4 acres, and 51 acres, respectively, and the LRT and BRT alternatives would displace 15 businesses and community facilities and require relocation of utilities throughout the corridor. All action alternatives would remove a small portion of Leakin Park and could impact War Memorial Plaza. The LRT would result in the creation and operation of surface infrastructure that would constitute a significant visual intrusion into the cityscape. Noise levels associated with operations of the LRT would be moderate throughout most of the corridor, but noise levels would exceed federal standards along Fleet Street west of Haven Street. Numerous historic sites and two historic districts would be impacted by the project, and the LRT would tunnel under an historic cemetery. Construction activity for any action alternative could displace or disturb archaeological resource sites. Project construction and operation would disproportionately affect minority group members and economically disadvantaged populations. Forested habitat and aquatic habitat, including wetlands, would be lost or degraded along the corridor under the BRT and LRT alternatives. BRT or LRT Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 080385, 259 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, September 24, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cemeteries KW - Central Business Districts KW - Community Facilities KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+LINE+CORRIDOR+TRANSIT+STUDY%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=RED+LINE+CORRIDOR+TRANSIT+STUDY%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 14, FROM INTERSTATE 35 TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 50 IN STEELE AND DODGE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 16381865; 13617 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 19 miles of Trunk Highway (TH) 1 from the existing four-lane bypass of Dodge Center to the intersection of TH 14 and Interstate 35 (I-35) in Steel and Dodge counties, Minnesota is proposed. TH 14 is a major east-west highway providing important links between the interregional corridors of I-35 in Owatonna, Highway 52 in Rochester, and Highway 169 in Mankato. The corridor is characterized by growing traffic levels, particularly truck traffic levels, reduce average travel speeds, limited passing opportunities, and significant safety issues. The excising two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic it carries. Other highway characteristics demonstrating the need for an upgrade include high crash rates, a large number of direct uncontrolled access points, and the lack of system continuity. The proposed improvements would include the construction of a four-lane divided, fully access-controlled freeway through the entire study corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Built Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would reconstruct TH 14 on the existing alignment, implementing the design described above. Alternative 3 would result in the construction of the four-lane upgrade partially on the existing alignment and partly on new alignment. Both alternatives include an option to provide a southern bypass around Claremont. Cost estimates for alternatives 2 and 3 range from $165 million to $168 million and from $143 million to $150 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 1.2 and 1.7. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded facility would maintain mobility under future traffic conditions, improve travel safety, enhance system continuity by completing a four-lane segment connecting two contiguous four lane sections, and foster economic growth along the corridor. Improved movement of traffic along the corridor could increase use of transit options in the region and improve the efficiency of transit connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 807 to 978 acres of rights-of-way, including 367 to 576 acres of new land acquisition, would displace 11 to 19 residences, up to three businesses, 584 to 757 acres of prime or unique farmland, and 15 to 17 acres of wetlands. Three to 10 public road crossings and up to three private road crossings would be closed, reducing access to the corridor. The project could impact one park and three archaeological sites and would impact 11 to 15 architectural structures, all of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The highway would add 78 to 148 acres of new impervious surface to the corridor, increasing roadway runoff and adding greater levels of pollutants to receiving surface flows. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 49 to 62 residential and nine sensitive commercial properties. Construction workers would encounter 25 to 44 hazardous waste sites. The Claremont south bypass option would 196 to 214 acres to the extent of rights-of-way necessary, resulting in the displacement of four to six residences, involvement of five to 24 more contaminated waste sites, possible impacts to three more National Register-eligible archaeological sites, displacement of 0.69 to 2.34 acres of additional wetlands, and addition of eight to 11 more residential sites at which federal noise standards would be violated. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080391, 267 pages and maps, September 24, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-08-03-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+14%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+35+TO+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+50+IN+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+14%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+35+TO+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+50+IN+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 16371070; 13599 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels determined that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA would continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Action Alternative A would provide for four parallel runways (8/26, 9L/27R, 9C/27C, and 9R/27L) and one cross-wind runway (17/35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8/26 and 9L/27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8/26, 9L/27R to 9C/27C, and 9R/27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8/26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/27L to the east. Both build alternatives also include would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.2 billion an d$5.4 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays, and PIA's contribution to delays in the National Airspace System. The improved facility would complement the recently designed New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project, significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fill would be placed in the 100-year floodplain, but floodwater storage capacity would not be impaired. Depending on the action alternative chosen, aircraft noise levels would exceed federal standards over 47 to 50 acres of residential land in 2020 and 59.4 to 66.8 acres in 2025. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, Tinicum Road, the Conrail line south of the airport, Island Avenue, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require that one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility be relocated. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080374, Executive Summary--30 pages and maps. Draft EIS--466 pages, Figures--101 pages (oversize), Appendices--199 pages, CD-ROM, September 19, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE BETWEEN NORTH POLE AND DELTA JUNCTION, ALASKA (STB FINANCE DOCKET NO. 35468). AN - 36351432; 14031 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of an 80-mile rail line from North Pole to Delta Junction in Alaska is proposed by the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC). The existing ARRC network extends from Seward through Anchorage and Fairbanks, ending at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) through the Eielson Branch rail line. The Eielson Branch line serves Eielson AFB and the North Pole Refinery. At present, commercial freight, other than that associated with Eielson AFB and the refinery, generally enters and leaves the study area by truck via Richardson Highway (Alaska Route 4, extending from Valdez to Delta Junction, and Alaska Route 2, extending from Delta Junction to Fairbanks) or the Alaska Highway (Alaska Route 2 from Delta Junction to Tok and beyond). To be known as the Northern Rail Extension, the proposed single-track line would be located in Interior Alaska, southeast of the city of Fairbanks, and would constitute an extension of the existing rail line that ends at Eielson Air Force Base. The rail line would lie within a 200-foot-wide right-of-way that would also contain sidings at several locations, a power transmission line, a buried communications cable, and an access road. ARRC would construct other facilities, such as communications towers and a passenger platform at Delta Junction, to support rail operations. The project would include the construction of several culverts and bridges. Several routing options are contained within the proposed action. This final EIS includes a copy of the December, 2008 draft EIS which, in addition to the proposed action, considers a No Action Alternative, as well as various common segments, alternative segments, and connector segments. The recommended alternatives include the North Common Segment, any of the three Eielson alternative segments, Selcha Alternative Segment 1, Connector Segment B, Central Alternative Segment 2, Connector Segment E, either of the Donnelly alternative segments, South Common Segment, and Delta Alternative Segment 1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would extend the freight and passenger rail service the ARRC provides to the region, provide a transportation alternative to Richardson Highway for individuals traveling between Fairbanks and Delta Junction, and allow year-round ground access to the Tanana Flats and Donnely training areas in the southwest and west sides of the Tanana River for U.S. Army and Air Force personnel and freight. The rail line would be less susceptible to inclement winter weather than the highway and could increase tourism to destinations within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetation would be cleared and soils and permafrost disturbed within the 200-foot rights-of-way, resulting in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat and the exacerbation of erosion and sedimentation in the area. Forested wetlands, scrub/shrub and emergent wetlands, and other significant water resource sites would be displaced or degraded. Habitat for bear, caribou, moose, wolf, and other furbearers would be lost. Numerous streams and rivers, some of which provide top quality fish habitat, would be traversed. Significant cultural and recreational resources would be adversely affected. Noise and vibrations from train operations would exceed federal standards at hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Along some sections of the track, facilities and trains would be inconsistent with federal visual resource management objectives. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090327, Final EIS--320 pages, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--571 pages, September 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Ice Environments KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Eielson Air Force Base KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+NORTH+POLE+AND+DELTA+JUNCTION%2C+ALASKA+%28STB+FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+35468%29.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+NORTH+POLE+AND+DELTA+JUNCTION%2C+ALASKA+%28STB+FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+35468%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NC 12 REPLACEMENT OF HERBERT C. BONNER BRIDGE, (BRIDGE NO. 11) OVER OREGON INLET, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16386939; 13598 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across the Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North Carolina is proposed in this draft supplement 2005 supplemental draft EIS on the project. Built in 1962, the existing Bonner Bridge is approaching the end of its reasonably service life. The structure is part of North Carolina (NC) 12and provides the only highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island. Two replacement bridge corridors and several design options are considered in this final EIS. The Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor would provide for a 17.5 mile bridge within an overall project length of 18 miles, including the bridge and the approach roads at the northern and southern termini. The typical section for the Pamlico Sound bridge would provide for two 12-foot travel lanes and two eight-foot shoulders. The span would provide a minimum navigation opening of 200 feet horizontally and 75 feet vertically. Estimated costs of the Pamlico and Parallel bridge crossings range from $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion. Five options are associated With Parallel Bridge Corridor. The corridor would cross the Oregon Inlet via a 2.7-mile bridge. The NC 12 maintenance component would keep NC 12 open from the community of Rodanthe to the Oregon Inlet bridge's southern terminus, a distance of 12.5 miles. The maintenance component would pass through Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Nourishment option would assume that NC 12 would remain in its current location and beach nourishment plus dune enhancement would be used to maintain a minimally adequate beach and dune system,. The total length of the beach requiring regular nourishment would be approximately 6.3 miles. Nourishment would occur at four locations and would repeated at four-year intervals. The Road North/Bridge South option would place NC 12 on a bridge west of Hatteras Island beginning at a new intersection in Rodanthe and continuing to a point approximately two miles north of the refuge's southern boundary, where the project would meet NC 12. Beginning at a point 1.3 miles south of the refuge's ponds, NC 12 would be relocated to a point 230 feet west of the forecast worst-case 2060 shoreline. This relocation would continue 7.1 miles north until the relocated NC 12 would meet Oregon Inlet bridge. Three 10-foot-high dunes, extending a total length of 2,100 feet, would be provided, but not immediately. The dunes would be provided as the shoreline erodes toward the relocated road, beginning in 2030. The All Bridge option would include the same bridge in the Rodanthe area as the Road North/Bridge South option. In the central and northern part of the refuge, NC 12 would be constructed on a bridge to the west of the existing road. Two road segments would be included in this relocation, one near Oregon Inlet and one just north of the refuge's ponds, where access from NC 12 to the refuge would be provided. The bridges associated With this alternative would span five potential storm-related island breach locations. The Parallel Bridge Corridor, With phased approach, option would provide for an Oregon Inlet bridge and the relocation of portions of NC 12 through the refuge and northern Rodanthe on new bridges within the existing NC 12 easement. The option would be implemented in four phases, With the First phase providing the bridge across Oregon Inlet. The typical section for the Oregon Inlet bridge would provide two 12-foot travel lanes and two six-foot shoulders. The navigation zone would be up to 5,000 feet long, With a vertical clearance of approximately 75 feet. The estimated cost for the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternative would be $671.8 million to 970.4 million for nourishment, $602.2 million to $740.2 million for the Road North/Bridge South option, $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion for the All Bridge option, and $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion for the phased approach option. The demolition of the existing Bonner Bridge is estimated to cost $4.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide an upgrade of the only connection between Hatteras the Bodie Island and, hence, from Hatteras to the mainland. The modern, safe, efficient crossing would enhance residential, commercial, and recreational access throughout the Outer Banks barrier islands and promote emergency response and hurricane evacuation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Pamlico South Bridge Corridor development would affect 10.8 to 12.8 acres of biotic communities, including 4.2 to 4.8 acres of wetlands. The Parallel Bridge Corridor would affect up to 91.6 acres of biotic communities, including extensive wetland areas. Under the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor Alternative, rights-of-way development would displace one business and five homes. The Road North/Bridge South Alternatives would displace two homes and a commercial building that contains a business and a residence. Charter fishing vessels operating out of Oregon Inlet Marine and Fishing Center would no longer be able to use an unmarked natural channel, known as "the crack," to reach the ocean. At Rodanthe, panoramic views of the Pamlico Sound from homes along the sound's shoreline would be changed under all alternatives except the Parallel Bridge Corridor With Nourishment option. The project would affect, but not remove, the Oregon Inlet U.S. Coast Guard Station, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The replacement bridge would be constructed in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at up to two residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of a supplement to the draft EIS, see 07-0141D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080373, Final EIS--751 pages, Appendices--422 pages, September 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-93-01-F KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Bridges KW - Dunes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Islands KW - National Parks KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NC+12+REPLACEMENT+OF+HERBERT+C.+BONNER+BRIDGE%2C+%28BRIDGE+NO.+11%29+OVER+OREGON+INLET%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NC+12+REPLACEMENT+OF+HERBERT+C.+BONNER+BRIDGE%2C+%28BRIDGE+NO.+11%29+OVER+OREGON+INLET%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Cosmic radiation exposure of aircraft occupants on simulated high-latitude flights during solar proton events from 1 January 1986 through 1 January 2008 AN - 20953262; 8417535 AB - From 1 January 1986 through 1 January 2008, GOES satellites recorded 170 solar proton events. For 169 of these events, we estimated effective and equivalent dose rates and doses of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and solar cosmic radiation (SCR), received by aircraft occupants on simulated high-latitude flights. Dose rate and dose estimates that follow are for altitudes 30, 40, 50, and 60kft, in that order. Mean SCR dose rates were highest 20 January 2005: to an adult, dose rates were 0.10, 0.35, 0.87, and 1.7mSv/h; to a conceptus, doses rates were 0.11, 0.37, 0.89, and 1.6mSv/h. GCR+mean SCR doses were highest 29 September 1989 and 20 January 2005: to an adult, highest doses in 1h were 0.048, 0.16, 0.42, and 0.90mSv; to an adult, highest doses in 10h were 0.20, 0.57, 1.3, and 2.6mSv; to a conceptus, highest doses in 1h were 0.050, 0.17, 0.44, and 0.83mSv; to a conceptus, highest doses in 10h were 0.22, 0.63, 1.4, and 2.4mSv. GCR+anisotropic-high SCR doses were highest 29 September 1989 and 20 January 2005: to an adult, highest doses in 1h were 0.15, 0.52, 1.3, and 2.6mSv; to an adult, highest doses in 10h were 0.29, 0.87, 2.0, and 4.0mSv; to a conceptus, highest doses in 1h were 0.16, 0.55, 1.3, and 2.4mSv; to a conceptus, highest doses in 10h were 0.31, 0.94, 2.1, and 3.7mSv. The dose to an adult was always less than the 20mSv (5-y average) occupational annual limit recommended in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The dose to a conceptus sometimes exceeded the 0.5mSv monthly limit recommended in 1993 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. JF - Advances in Space Research AU - Copeland, K AU - Sauer, H H AU - Duke, F E AU - Friedberg, W AD - Federal Aviation Administration, 6500 South MacArthur Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73169, USA, kyle.copeland@faa.gov Y1 - 2008/09/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Sep 15 SP - 1008 EP - 1029 PB - Elsevier Science, The Boulevard Langford Lane Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl] VL - 42 IS - 6 SN - 0273-1177, 0273-1177 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Protons KW - altitude KW - Remote sensing KW - Galaxies KW - GOES satellites KW - Solar radiation KW - Satellites KW - crew safety KW - Flight KW - commissions KW - Altitude KW - Solar radiation effects KW - Radiation KW - Aircraft KW - Cosmic radiation KW - councils KW - Solar proton events KW - Occupational exposure KW - X 24390:Radioactive Materials KW - P 8000:RADIATION KW - M2 524:Stars, Universe (524) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20953262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Space+Research&rft.atitle=Cosmic+radiation+exposure+of+aircraft+occupants+on+simulated+high-latitude+flights+during+solar+proton+events+from+1+January+1986+through+1+January+2008&rft.au=Copeland%2C+K%3BSauer%2C+H+H%3BDuke%2C+F+E%3BFriedberg%2C+W&rft.aulast=Copeland&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2008-09-15&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1008&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Space+Research&rft.issn=02731177&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.asr.2008.03.001 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Flight; Altitude; Aircraft; Radiation; Protons; Satellites; Solar radiation effects; Galaxies; Solar radiation; GOES satellites; Solar proton events; commissions; altitude; councils; Cosmic radiation; Remote sensing; Occupational exposure; crew safety DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2008.03.001 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System T2 - 4th European Geosynthetics Conference (EuroGeo 4) AN - 41104818; 4943977 JF - 4th European Geosynthetics Conference (EuroGeo 4) AU - Adams, Michael AU - Schlatter, Warren AU - Stabile, Thomas Y1 - 2008/09/07/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Sep 07 KW - Soil KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41104818?accountid=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=4th+European+Geosynthetics+Conference+%28EuroGeo+4%29&rft.atitle=Geosynthetic+Reinforced+Soil+Integrated+Bridge+System&rft.au=Adams%2C+Michael%3BSchlatter%2C+Warren%3BStabile%2C+Thomas&rft.aulast=Adams&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2008-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=4th+European+Geosynthetics+Conference+%28EuroGeo+4%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.eurogeo4.org/ctk/c_abs_summ_theme.cfm?conf_id=2 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-02-25 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 36345136; 13524 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage Road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, the final EIS of June 2008 considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. This record of decision identifies and details the selected alternative, presents a Section 4(f) statement addressing impacts to the Provo Viaduct and a historically significant building in American Fork, proposes an impact monitoring and enforcement program, and presents comments on the final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0336F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080254, 98 pages and maps, September 2, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-FS KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Laser exposure incidents: pilot ocular health and aviation safety issues. AN - 69461567; 18722964 AB - A database of aviation reports involving laser illumination of flight crewmembers has been established and maintained at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. A review of recent laser illumination reports was initiated to investigate the significance of these events. Reports that involved laser exposures of civilian aircraft in the United States were analyzed for the 13-month period (January 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005). There were 90 reported instances of laser illumination during the study period. A total of 53 reports involved laser exposure of commercial aircraft. Lasers illuminated the cockpit in 41 (46%) of the incidents. Of those, 13 (32%) incidents resulted in a visual impairment or distraction to a pilot, including 1 incident that reportedly resulted in an ocular injury. Nearly 96% of these reports occurred in the last 3 months of the study period. There were no aviation accidents in which laser light illumination was found to be a contributing factor. Operational problems have resulted from laser illumination incidents in the national airspace system. Eye care practitioners, to provide effective consultations to their pilot patients, should be familiar with the problems that can occur with laser exposure. JF - Optometry (St. Louis, Mo.) AU - Nakagawara, Van B AU - Wood, Kathryn J AU - Montgomery, Ron W AD - Vision Research Team, AAM-630, FAA/CAMI, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105, USA. van.nakagawara@faa.gov Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 518 EP - 524 VL - 79 IS - 9 KW - Index Medicus KW - Humans KW - Retrospective Studies KW - Incidence KW - Follow-Up Studies KW - United States -- epidemiology KW - Occupational Diseases -- diagnosis KW - Aviation KW - Occupational Health -- statistics & numerical data KW - Occupational Diseases -- etiology KW - Eye Diseases -- etiology KW - Eye Diseases -- epidemiology KW - Occupational Exposure -- adverse effects KW - Occupational Diseases -- epidemiology KW - Eye Diseases -- diagnosis KW - Eye -- radiation effects KW - Lasers -- adverse effects UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/69461567?accountid=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=Optometry+%28St.+Louis%2C+Mo.%29&rft.atitle=Laser+exposure+incidents%3A+pilot+ocular+health+and+aviation+safety+issues.&rft.au=Nakagawara%2C+Van+B%3BWood%2C+Kathryn+J%3BMontgomery%2C+Ron+W&rft.aulast=Nakagawara&rft.aufirst=Van&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=79&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=518&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Optometry+%28St.+Louis%2C+Mo.%29&rft.issn=1558-1527&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.optm.2007.08.022 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-01-06 N1 - Date created - 2008-08-25 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optm.2007.08.022 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Interstate spillovers of private capital and public spending AN - 36988432; 3780780 AB - The analysis estimates the economic returns on public spending by transportation and non-transportation functions vs. private capital, using a panel data set for 48 contiguous states from 1989 through 2002. These actual spending dollars are used as a more precise measure compared to apportioned state public capitals used in the existing literature. For each type of capital/spending, the interstate spillovers were constructed in such a way that different states are weighted by commodity flows across the states to reflect different degree of inter-state dependence. We find that when spending data rather than capital stock is used, all of the interstate spillover effects are negative and statistically significant, suggesting that infrastructure investment does not contribute to economic growth (at least not directly). Therefore, crowding out effects exist among states competing for both private and government funds, in particular if states are highly dependent on allocation of federal funds. These results confirm the finding that previously estimated positive coefficients reflect spurious correlation based on capital stocks and output. Reprinted by permission of Springer JF - Annals of regional science AU - Sloboda, Brian W AU - Yao, Vincent W AD - US Department of Transportation Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 SP - 505 EP - 518 VL - 42 IS - 3 SN - 0570-1864, 0570-1864 KW - Economics KW - Comparative analysis KW - Private investment KW - Federal states KW - Transport KW - Public expenditure KW - Economic growth KW - Capital returns KW - U.S.A. KW - Data analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36988432?accountid=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=Annals+of+regional+science&rft.atitle=Interstate+spillovers+of+private+capital+and+public+spending&rft.au=Sloboda%2C+Brian+W%3BYao%2C+Vincent+W&rft.aulast=Sloboda&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=505&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+regional+science&rft.issn=05701864&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00168-007-0181-z LA - English DB - International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-12 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - 10443 4618; 10202 6852; 2630 971; 1998 1952 10304; 12937; 4845 12168 9008 12092 9720 6590; 3939; 3279 971 3286; 433 293 14 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-007-0181-z ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Subsidies and welfare maximization tradeoffs in bus transit systems AN - 36988027; 3780786 AB - Under a maximum welfare objective, a fixed route bus system and a flexible route bus system are optimized subject to various financial constraints. For each bus system, the decision variables including fare, headway, route spacing, and service zone area are optimally solved to analyze unconstrained, break-even and subsidy cases. Numerical results and sensitivity analysis are presented in the paper. From the numerical evaluation, it is shown that the effects of subsidies on welfare are quite different for a fixed route bus system versus a flexible route bus system. For the fixed route bus system, the optimal welfare curve is very flat over a wide range of subsidies. However, for the flexible route bus system, the break-even constraint causes a large loss in the social welfare. Thus, with the welfare maximization objective, the break-even policy or low transit subsidy policy may be preferable for the fixed route bus system, but not for the flexible route bus system. The results derived from this study can support effective decision-making on bus transit systems in areas that may experience significant shifts in residential density, as well as geographic or physical changes in their street networks. Reprinted by permission of Springer JF - Annals of regional science AU - Zhou, Ying AU - Kim, Hong Sok AU - Schonfeld, Paul AU - Kim, Eungcheol AD - California Department of Transportation ; Yonsei University ; University of Maryland ; University of Incheon Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 SP - 643 EP - 660 VL - 42 IS - 3 SN - 0570-1864, 0570-1864 KW - Economics KW - Decision making KW - Transport policy KW - Welfare measurement KW - Economic development KW - Subsidies KW - Buses KW - Urban transport KW - Systems analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36988027?accountid=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=Annals+of+regional+science&rft.atitle=Subsidies+and+welfare+maximization+tradeoffs+in+bus+transit+systems&rft.au=Zhou%2C+Ying%3BKim%2C+Hong+Sok%3BSchonfeld%2C+Paul%3BKim%2C+Eungcheol&rft.aulast=Zhou&rft.aufirst=Ying&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=643&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+regional+science&rft.issn=05701864&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00168-007-0177-8 LA - English DB - International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-12 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - 13201 12937; 1840 10489 12937 13272 7848; 12474 971; 13526 7854; 12353 4968 4908; 12944 4336 5574 10472 7584 3977 10729; 3322 6071 1542 11325; 3907 3483 3921 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-007-0177-8 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Transportation investment and economic development AN - 36988022; 3780930 JF - Annals of regional science AU - Sloboda, Brian W AU - Yao, Vincent W AU - Weisbrod, Glen AU - Gkritza, Konstantina AU - Sinha, Kumares C AU - Labi, Samuel AU - Mannering, Fred L AU - Luskin, David M AU - Mallard, Erin E AU - Victoria-Jaramillo, Isabel C AU - Vadali, Sharada AU - Kim, Byung Jong AU - Kim, Wonkyu AU - Song, Byung Heum AU - Zhou, Ying AU - Kim, Hong Sok AU - Schonfeld, Paul AU - Kim, Eungcheol AD - US Department of Transportation ; Economic Development Research Group ; Iowa State University ; Purdue University ; HDR Engineering ; University of Texas, Austin ; Wilbur Smith Associates ; Texas A&M University ; Korea Aerospace University ; California Department of Transportation ; Yonsei University ; University of Maryland ; University of Incheon Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 SP - 505 EP - 660 VL - 42 IS - 3 SN - 0570-1864, 0570-1864 KW - Economics KW - Forecasts KW - Economic models KW - Public expenditure KW - Economic development KW - Transport economics KW - Estimation KW - Economic growth KW - Economic impact analysis KW - Motorways KW - Construction activity KW - Transport policy KW - Private investment KW - Public transport KW - Transport infrastructure KW - Computational methods KW - Road transport UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36988022?accountid=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=Annals+of+regional+science&rft.atitle=Transportation+investment+and+economic+development&rft.au=Sloboda%2C+Brian+W%3BYao%2C+Vincent+W%3BWeisbrod%2C+Glen%3BGkritza%2C+Konstantina%3BSinha%2C+Kumares+C%3BLabi%2C+Samuel%3BMannering%2C+Fred+L%3BLuskin%2C+David+M%3BMallard%2C+Erin+E%3BVictoria-Jaramillo%2C+Isabel+C%3BVadali%2C+Sharada%3BKim%2C+Byung+Jong%3BKim%2C+Wonkyu%3BSong%2C+Byung+Heum%3BZhou%2C+Ying%3BKim%2C+Hong+Sok%3BSchonfeld%2C+Paul%3BKim%2C+Eungcheol&rft.aulast=Sloboda&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=505&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+regional+science&rft.issn=05701864&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Collection of 7 articles N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - 3907 3483 3921; 12941 10453; 10443 4618; 10202 6852; 3942 3883 971; 11086 12937; 8332 11087 12941 10453; 10489 12937; 2768; 12944 4336 5574 10472 7584 3977 10729; 3969 8163; 5163; 4403 7854; 2671 10919; 12940 4025; 3939 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - RESEARCH ARTICLE: Occurrence and Distribution of Mammals on the McChord Air Force Base, Washington AN - 20773077; 10296581 AB - In the fall of 2005 and spring and summer of 2006, The Nature Conservancy, in cooperation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Cascadia Research Collective, conducted a mammal inventory on McChord Air Force Base (MAFB). The military has a vested interest in maintaining habitat and species by congressional mandate and the corresponding burden of recovery. Six major habitat types were designated for trap-line transects; additional directed efforts were employed to target specific species. The resulting effort documented the presence of 36 species, eight of which were bats. Documented species of note include the western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), a state 'threatened' species, detected by hair-snag tubes; long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis); long-legged myotis (Myotis volans); and the Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). Mammalian diversity on MAFB was influenced by three factors: water (either open water or wetland habitat); large, contiguous tracts of undeveloped acreage; and continuity with Fort Lewis, a large military base immediately adjacent to MAFB. Additionally, Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), an invasive woody shrub, was found to support limited mammalian diversity, with the fewest species documented in this habitat type. Given the impending changes due to development, ownership, and climate, this survey will be useful to managers as a baseline for focused species efforts and future comparisons. Environmental Practice 10:116-124 (2008) JF - Environmental Practice AU - Freed, Sanders AU - McAllister, Kelly AD - Washington Department of Transportation, Environmental Services Office, Olympia, Washington, sfreed@tnc.org Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 SP - 116 EP - 124 PB - Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU UK VL - 10 IS - 3 SN - 1466-0466, 1466-0466 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Environment Abstracts KW - mammals KW - Wildlife KW - Climatic changes KW - Cytisus scoparius KW - Rare species KW - Habitat KW - shrubs KW - USA, Washington KW - threatened species KW - Species diversity KW - Sciurus griseus KW - Nature conservation KW - summer KW - Property rights KW - Fish KW - Wetlands KW - Myotis myotis KW - Military KW - Dispersion KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - ENA 21:Wildlife UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20773077?accountid=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=Environmental+Practice&rft.atitle=RESEARCH+ARTICLE%3A+Occurrence+and+Distribution+of+Mammals+on+the+McChord+Air+Force+Base%2C+Washington&rft.au=Freed%2C+Sanders%3BMcAllister%2C+Kelly&rft.aulast=Freed&rft.aufirst=Sanders&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=116&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Practice&rft.issn=14660466&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017%2FS146604660808023X LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Climatic changes; Species diversity; Nature conservation; Property rights; Wetlands; Rare species; Dispersion; mammals; threatened species; Wildlife; summer; Fish; Military; Habitat; shrubs; Sciurus griseus; Myotis myotis; Cytisus scoparius; USA, Washington DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S146604660808023X ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Analysis of a blast-loaded protective wall for bridge columns AN - 20535384; 9224734 AB - In this paper, the analytical method of analysing the dynamic response of a protective wall subjected to the blast loadings is presented. Based on the deformation observations and analyses, the wall is treated as a shear-flexural plate, wherein the deformations in two orthogonal directions are assumed to be dominated by shear and flexure, respectively. The governing equation is derived, and the method of the blast response analysis is proposed. For a soil protective wall, the numerical results, including dynamic characteristics, structural response, and pressure-impulse (P-I) diagram are given based on the proposed shear-flexural plate model. JF - Bridge Structures: Assessment, Design and Construction AU - Fang, J Q AU - Chung, P AU - Wolfe, R W AD - Structural Analysis Committee, California Department of Transportation, Diamond Bar, CA, USA Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 SP - 135 EP - 141 PB - Taylor & Francis, 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE UK, [mailto:info@tandf.co.uk], [URL:http://www.tandf.co.uk] VL - 4 IS - 3 SN - 1573-2487, 1573-2487 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Soil KW - Bridges KW - deformation KW - H 15000:Civil/Structural Engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20535384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bridge+Structures%3A+Assessment%2C+Design+and+Construction&rft.atitle=Analysis+of+a+blast-loaded+protective+wall+for+bridge+columns&rft.au=Fang%2C+J+Q%3BChung%2C+P%3BWolfe%2C+R+W&rft.aulast=Fang&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=135&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bridge+Structures%3A+Assessment%2C+Design+and+Construction&rft.issn=15732487&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F15732480802399466 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil; Bridges; deformation DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732480802399466 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Age is more than just a number: Implications for an aging workforce in the US transportation sector AN - 19633324; 8809774 AB - The US workforce is aging. At the same time, there are a record number of open positions in the transportation sector, which has traditionally been a well-paying, but stressful and schedule-dependent, occupation. Due to increasing longevity, need, and ability to work, a possible solution to the transportation workforce shortfall may lie within the retention and recruitment of older workers. This paper uses a socio-technical framework to examine the pertinent, though scant, literature and data related to older workforce demographics and operational needs, the regulatory environment, requisite knowledge, skills and abilities, and application of support technology and training. Although there is evidence of age-related changes in physiology and cognition, the current science remains unable to resolve how an older workforce may most appropriately be applied to transportation to maximize system safety and minimize negative impact to worker well-being. JF - Applied Ergonomics AU - Popkin, Stephen M AU - Morrow, Stephanie L AU - Di Domenico, Tara E AU - Howarth, Heidi D AD - Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA, stephen.popkin@volpe.dot.gov Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 SP - 542 EP - 549 PB - Elsevier Science, The Boulevard Langford Lane Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl] VL - 39 IS - 5 SN - 0003-6870, 0003-6870 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - demography KW - Age KW - Physiology KW - working conditions KW - Transportation KW - recruitment KW - longevity KW - Ergonomics KW - aging KW - Training KW - USA KW - cognitive ability KW - Technology KW - H 1000:Occupational Safety and Health UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19633324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Applied+Ergonomics&rft.atitle=Age+is+more+than+just+a+number%3A+Implications+for+an+aging+workforce+in+the+US+transportation+sector&rft.au=Popkin%2C+Stephen+M%3BMorrow%2C+Stephanie+L%3BDi+Domenico%2C+Tara+E%3BHowarth%2C+Heidi+D&rft.aulast=Popkin&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=542&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Applied+Ergonomics&rft.issn=00036870&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.apergo.2008.02.003 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - USA; Transportation; aging; cognitive ability; working conditions; Ergonomics; demography; Training; longevity; recruitment; Technology; Age; Physiology DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.02.003 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756824995; 13563-080338_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756824554; 13563-080338_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756824545; 13563-080338_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756824522; 13563-080338_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756824520; 13563-080338_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756824514; 13563-080338_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756824512; 13563-080338_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756824506; 13563-080338_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - S.R. 108 FROM S.R. 127 (ANTELOPE DRIVE) TO S.R. 126 (1900 WEST) IN SYRACUSE, WEST POINT, AND CLINTON IN DAVIS COUNTY AND ROY AND WEST HAVEN IN WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36344281; 13563 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 9.5 miles of State Route (SR) 108 between Antelope Drive (SR 127) in Syracuse and 1900 West (SR 126) in West Haven, Utah is proposed. SR 108, which is a two-lane Road from Antelope Drive to 1900 West, provides important access between the cities of Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven. The facility also provides city residents with access to Interstate 15, the only major interstate in the study area, via Antelope Drive to the southeast and access to employment and commercial areas in Ogden to the northeast. SR 108 is the only continuous north-south connector west of I-15 in the study area. the existing facility is characterized by several roadway deficiencies, and traffic congestion levels are increasing due to economic development and population growth along the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Either action alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median and complemented by right- and left-turn lanes at intersections, appropriate shoulders for local access, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The preferred action alternative would widen SR 108 to a 110-foot, five-lane cross section. The facility would feature four 12-foot travel lanes, a 14-foot median (either a two-way left-turn lane or a raised center median, eight-foot shoulders, four-foot bicycle lanes, 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections, 4.5-foot park strips, and four-foot sidewalks. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve local and regional mobility in Syracuse, West Point, Clinton, Roy, and West Haven; eliminate roadway deficiencies in order to reduce accident rates, double roadway capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes without creating congestion; and enhance the opportunities for multi-model use of SR 108 by providing improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 30 acres to highway rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 55 residences and five businesses as well as 20.5 acres of farmland. Four agricultural protection areas would be traversed. The project would affect 14 historically significant architectural sites. Traffic-generated noise levels along the corridor would exceed federal standards at 280 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0492D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080338, 501 pages and maps, August 27, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-03-F KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=S.R.+108+FROM+S.R.+127+%28ANTELOPE+DRIVE%29+TO+S.R.+126+%281900+WEST%29+IN+SYRACUSE%2C+WEST+POINT%2C+AND+CLINTON+IN+DAVIS+COUNTY+AND+ROY+AND+WEST+HAVEN+IN+WEBER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 90 SNOQUALMIE PASS EAST, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16370911; 13557 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 15-mile section of Interstate 90 (I-90), known as the Snoqualmie Pass East Project, in Kittitas County, Washington within the Wenatcheee National Forest is proposed. The study area begins on the western side of Snoqualmie Pass at milepost 55.1 in Hyak and ends at milepost 70.3 in Easton. I-90 is vital to the state's economy due its status as the main east-west transportation corridor across Washington. I-90 connects Puget Sound's deep-water ports, lager population centers, and retail and service businesses with the farmlands, industries, and extensive outdoor recreational areas of eastern Washington. The 15-mile study corridor is part of the 100-mile designated scenic byway called the Mounts to Sound Greenway. The Greenway is one of three designated scenic byways in Washington, and it was the first interstate in the country to be designated as a National Scenic Byway. The Wenatcheee National Forest provides recreational experiences to over 5.0 million visitors per year and is nee of the nation's top six most visited national forests. This section of I-90 has been plagued by avalanches, unstable slopes, deteriorating pavement, high traffic volumes, and a high accident rate. In addition to the proposed actions, known as the Common Route Alternatives, of which there are four, this final EIS addresses the No-Build Alternative. The proposed action would provide improvements along Keechelus Lake to remove or reduce the need for avalanche control work; stabilize slopes to reduce the risk of falling rock and debris; replace damaged pavement; expand I-90 from four lanes to six lanes to accommodate increases in traffic volume; and improve habitat connections for fish and wildlife. In addition, the Common Route Alternatives would improve curves in specific areas of the corridor. Low-clearance bridges would be removed and replaced with bridges that accommodate large trucks. Four alignment alternatives would be considered at Keechelus Lake, including the use of two 1.9-mile tunnels, two 0.6-mile tunnels, a westbound only tunnel, or a shoreline alignment, both directions of traffic moving along the lake around Slide Curve. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred action would reduce the risks of avalanche to the traveling public and eliminate Road closures required for avalanche control work; reduce the risk of rock and debris falling onto the roadway from unstable slopes; fix structural deficiencies by replacing damaged pavement, provide for the growth-related increases in traffic volume, and connect habitats across I-90 for fish and wildlife. Stream channel function in the Gold Creek, Swamp Creek, Toll Creek, Hudson Creek, and Price/Noble Creek areas would improve. Stormwater pollutant loading in Keechelus Lake would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would disturb soils, displace wetlands, fish and aquatic habitat, terrestrial habitat, riparian habitat, mature forest, recreational resources, 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 Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0640D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080332, Record of Decision--25 pages, 11 pages, CD-ROMs (2, August 22, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-05-01-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lakes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Wenatcheee National Forest KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+90+SNOQUALMIE+PASS+EAST%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+90+SNOQUALMIE+PASS+EAST%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSSELL STREET/SOUTH THIRD STREET, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 36346057; 13552 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Russell Street from Mount Avenue/South 14th Street to West Broadway Street and South 3rd Street. The project would reconstruct 1.5 miles of Russell Street and one mile of South 3rd Street. Russell Street currently varies in width from two to four lanes, including turn lanes at some intersections; the facility includes a two-lane bridge over Clark Fork River. South 3rd Street currently varies in width but generally includes one travel lane in each direction and turn lanes at intersections. Six Russell Street alternatives and five South 3rd Street alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative for each corridor, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternatives would provide for four travel lanes and a center turn lane or median on Russell Street and two travel lanes and a center turn lane on South 3rd Street. Major intersections on Russell Street would be controlled with signals, while roundabouts would be employed on South 3rd Street. The existing Russell Street Bridge over the Clark Fork River 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 Trail and Milwaukee Corridor Trail connections be placed in tunnels under Russell Street, and the Shady Grove (River Trail System) connection would be extended across the new Russell Street Bridge. All build alternatives for both street corridors would 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 at $39.6 million and $12.8 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safety and mobility improvements for users of the two affected corridors, the project would significantly improve the cityscape's visual aesthetics and reduce vehicle emissions due to smoother operations NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative for Russell Street, 4.3 acres of new rights-of-way development would result in the displacement 11 residences, and 10 commercial buildings. The three trail crossings would alter the viewscape of the trails and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of hikers and bicyclists. Under the preferred alternative for South 3rd Street, 2.77 acres of new rights-of-way development would result in the displacement three residences and two commercial buildings. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080327, 334 pages and maps, August 20, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Visual Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUSSELL+STREET%2FSOUTH+THIRD+STREET%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=RUSSELL+STREET%2FSOUTH+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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 74 RELOCATION, GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA: FROM US 129 IN ROBBINSVILLE TO NC 28 IN STECOAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IN RELATION TO THE 1984 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36349124; 13551 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of approximately 10 miles of four-lane, divided with partial control of access, extending from US 129 in Robbinsville to North Carolina (NC) 28 in Stecoah, Graham County, North Carolina is proposed. This project, which was proposed in a 1984 final EIS, would constitute the B and C segments of a US 74 relocation project. The project, in turn, is a component of Corridor K of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). Four alignment alternatives and a No Build Alternative Are considered in this draft supplemental final EIS. Depending on the Alternative Alignment chosen, cost of the project is estimated to range from $334.3 million to $383.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This new segment of the ADHS would provide for regional connectivity and, thereby, economic development in an economically disadvantaged area, while completing a missing link in the Braham County transportation system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alignment alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 35 to 44 residences and one or two businesses and could encroach on a park and a cemetery. From 81 to 105 acres of prime, unique, or locally important farmland would be taken. Natural vegetation habitat lost would include 136 to 164 acres of rice cove forest, 22.5 to 27.7 acres of acid cove forest, 71.8 to 111.3 acres of montane oak-hickory forest, 3.5 to 4.9 acres of dry-mesic oak-hickory forest, 1.3 acres of Canada hemlock forest, 0.5 to one acre of montane alluvial forest, and 1.7 to 7.2 acres of white pine forest; 65 to 92 acres of U.S. Forest Service-administered lands would be taken. The alignment would traverse 17.3 to 86 acres of floodplain, and 1.4 to 2.6 acres of wetlands would be lost. Culverts would result in shading of 753 to 803 linear feet of stream, and the project would require 18,804 to 23,195 linear feet of instream cut and fill. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 16 to 18 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers could encounter two hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080326, Draft EIS--111 pages and maps, Appendices--244 pages, August 19, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-08-03-D KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, 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/36349124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+74+RELOCATION%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%3A+FROM+US+129+IN+ROBBINSVILLE+TO+NC+28+IN+STECOAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+IN+RELATION+TO+THE+1984+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=US+74+RELOCATION%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%3A+FROM+US+129+IN+ROBBINSVILLE+TO+NC+28+IN+STECOAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+IN+RELATION+TO+THE+1984+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. COAST GUARD RULEMAKING FOR DRY CARGO RESIDUE DISCHARGES IN THE GREAT LAKES. AN - 16372499; 13548 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of U.S. Coast Guard regulations with respect to the discharge of non-toxic and non-hazardous bulk dry cargo residues (DCR) in the Great Lakes is proposed. The residues of interest are principally include limestone, iron ore, and coal, but lesser quantities of other dry cargo, such as cement and salt, would also be covered by the regulation. A substantial portion of Great Lakes shipping involves bulk dry cargo. During ship loading and unloading, small portions of cargo often fall on ship decks or within ship unloading tunnels. This fallen DCR can contaminate other cargo or pose safety risks to crew members. Traditionally, shippers have managed DRC by periodically washing both the deck and the cargo unloading tunnels with water in a practice known as "cargo sweeping". In order to reduce costs and minimize in-port time, ships typically conduct cargo sweeping while underway in transit between ports, the water and the DCR being together washed off the ship into the lake. Based on voluntary recordkeeping, the shipping of 165 million tons of bulk dry cargo annually results in the sweeping of 500 tons of DCR. Even though the reported amounts of DCR swept are relatively small, there is the potential for impacts to important resources within the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard currently regulates DCR sweepings under an Interim Enforcement Policy (IEP) issued in 1993 and authorized by Congress in 1998. Five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2), which is also the preferred alternative, would allow for the continuation of current DCR sweeping practices in accordance with the IEP, while enforcing mandatory recordkeeping so that the Coast Guard could glean additional information about the practice of sweeping DCR for application in the possible development of future regulations governing DCR sweeping. The alternatives were analyzed with scientific sampling, modeling and testing methods to determine the impacts of each alternative on sediment and benthic and pelagic habitat, water quality, biological resources, invasive species, threatened and endangered species, and essential fish habitat, as well as socioeconomic resources. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 all include the provisions of the proposed action, but provide, variously, for modified DCR sweeping exclusion areas, shoreside measures at ports to reduce amounts of swept DNR, and/or structural, mechanical, and operational changes on ships to reduce amounts of swept DCR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed regulatory action would control nonhazardous, nontoxic DCR sweeping from vessels in the Great Lakes that fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, thereby placing limits on the amounts of these potential pollutants to be released into the lakes ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in continued minor impacts to bottom sediment characteristics, potentially resulting in small and localized shifts in the relative abundance of native benthos and increasing populations of invasive zebra and quagga mussels. Sweeping in some protected and sensitive areas would continue to be allowed. LEGAL MANDATES: Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-293). JF - EPA number: 080323, 267 pages, CD-ROM, August 15, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Wastes KW - Barges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Great Lakes KW - Pest Control KW - Regulations KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shellfish KW - Ships KW - Toxicity KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Waste Disposal KW - Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+COAST+GUARD+RULEMAKING+FOR+DRY+CARGO+RESIDUE+DISCHARGES+IN+THE+GREAT+LAKES.&rft.title=U.S.+COAST+GUARD+RULEMAKING+FOR+DRY+CARGO+RESIDUE+DISCHARGES+IN+THE+GREAT+LAKES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 15, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. AN - 16374288; 13544 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements for Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport near Sitka, Alaska is proposed. Sitka is located on the west coast of Baranof Island fronting the Pacific Ocean on Sitka Sound, 95 miles southwest of Juneau and 185 miles northwest of Ketchikan. The airport lies approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the central business district. The city is accessible only by air and sea. In addition to functioning as the city's only municipal airport, the facility, which was constructed in 1960, supports U.S. Coast Guard air station and other facilities on nearby Japonski Island. Under the federal National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, the airport is classified as a primary non-hub commercial service airport. The facility features one 6,500-foot-long, 150-foot-wide runway (Runway 11/29) and a partial taxiway. Two taxiways and connectors provide the partial taxiway system, and the facility also features a terminal facility, and general aviation facilities. The major actions proposed under the improvement project would include improvements to runway safety areas, construction of a full-length parallel taxiway, relocation of the seaplane pullout from west of the runway, install an approach lighting system, repair and improve the airport seawall, and acquire additional property needed for expansion of the facility. This draft EIS considers varying numbers of alternatives are considered for each type of improvement, including a No Action Alternative (in each case, Alternative 1). The preferred alternative is identified for each type of improvement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would provide runway safety areas that meet federal guidance; reduce the potential for runway incursions and, thereby, improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations; improve the ability of aircraft to land and/or takeoff during inclement weather; maintain the structural integrity of the runway and prevent closure of the runway resulting from wave overtopping and associated storm debris; obtain property rights sufficient to provide lands for current and future aviation uses. The increased capacity and availability of the airport in nearly all weathers would provide a significant economic boost to island inhabitants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require placement of 371,200 cubic yards of fill into the Sitka Sound, violating the guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Sitka Coastal Management Program. The area of placement is affected by coastal flooding, and the displacement of open water would displace floodwater storage capacity. The new seaplane pullout would also damage coastal values. Construction of the runway safety area would displace 622 linear feet of shoreline and 1.93 acres of open water and benthic habitat due to rock placement. Bird habitat would be fragmented by taxiway facilities. Construction workers would be likely to encounter hazardous military wastes on the seafloor. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080319, 778 pages, August 14, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Ice Environments KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Coast Guard) KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Baranof Island KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, 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/16374288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 73, FROM I-19 TO FUTURE INTERSTATE 74, DILLON AND MARLBOROUGH COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA AND RICHMOND AND SCOTT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16376443; 13542 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a segment of Interstate 73 (I-73) on new alignment in northeastern South Carolina is proposed. Through the portion of the project to be addressed in this EIS process is located in South Carolina, the project study area extends northwest from I-95 and is bounded by the North Carolina/South Carolina state line to the east, by a line just north of future I-73/74 in North Carolina, and to the west by the eastern edge of the Great Pee Dee River floodplain. The project would extend from I-95 in Dillon County and through Marlboro County in South Carolina and into Richmond County, North Carolina, terminating at I-74 in Richmond County. The typical roadway section would accommodate a six-lane facility with corridors for future rail lines and allowances for frontage roads where necessary. The initial facility would accommodate two traffic lanes in each direction. In the future, when traffic volumes increased to a pint at which additional lanes were necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service, an additional lane in each direction would be added within the median. A 400-foot rights-of-way would be acquired where frontage roads were necessary. Where frontage roads were not required, a 300-foot rights-of-way would be acquired. Three Alternative Alignments and a No-Build Alternative Are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives vary in length from 36.8 to 40.6 miles. These alternatives would have interchanges at I-95, State Route (SR) 34, SR 381 or SR 9, US 15/401, SR 79, or SR 9, and I-71. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2), which extends 36.8 miles, was selected as it would have the least impact on wetlands and farmland, the lowest cost, and the fewest residential and business relocations. Construction cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.08 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new segment of freeway would provide an interstate link between the southernmost proposed segment of I-73 (between I-95 and the Myrtle Beach area) and the North Carolina I-73/74 corridor, to serve residents, businesses, and travelers while fulfilling congressional intent in an environmentally responsible and community-sensitive manner. The project would promote economic development in Richmond, Scotland, Marlboro, and Dillon counties and provide a corridor for future rail connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 35 residences and six businesses, 1,505 acres of farmland, 114.3 acres of wetlands, 8,143 linear feet of stream at 24 stream crossings, 1,800.8 acres of upland wildlife habitat, and 25 acres of floodplain. Approximately 804.9 acres within the corridor would have a high potential for containing archaeological values. The facility would traverse four rail lines and two natural gas pipelines. Eight communities populated by minority and/or low income residents would suffer disproportionately from community disruptions cause by construction and use of the freeway. Construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste site. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0280D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080317, 699 pages and maps, August 13, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Minorities KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Carolina KW - South Carolina KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+73%2C+FROM+I-19+TO+FUTURE+INTERSTATE+74%2C+DILLON+AND+MARLBOROUGH+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+AND+RICHMOND+AND+SCOTT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+73%2C+FROM+I-19+TO+FUTURE+INTERSTATE+74%2C+DILLON+AND+MARLBOROUGH+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+AND+RICHMOND+AND+SCOTT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE ELK MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA, UTAH. AN - 16387094; 13538 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new U.S. Air Force military operations area (MOA) linked to the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) airspace in Utah is proposed. Due to scheduling priorities and testing demands, existing UTTR airspace cannot support the full training requirements of the F-16 fighter aircraft associated with the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings at Hill Air Force Base (AFB). The F-16 pilots at Hill AFB form an integral part of the Air Force's Aerospace Expeditionary Force, expected to deploy to fight around the world. To succeed, F-16 pilots must confront the world's most sophisticated enemy tactics and anti-aircraft systems. State-of-the-art aerial combat, close air support, and surface attack missions by F-16 fighters require highly tuned offensive and defensive pilot skills best practices at operationally realistic speeds and altitude regimes to conduct all defined training events. Combat readiness requires training airspace configured and sized to allow pilots to practice current tactics at supersonic speeds and make full use of the F-16's capabilities. However, scheduling priorities and access limitations for UTTR prevent the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings from accomplishing all required training such that 10 to 15 percent of the requirements go unmet. Hence, the Air Force proposes to establish and configure the new MOA to permit full training with respect to the current capabilities of the F-16 and its systems. The new MOA, to be known as the White Elk MOA, would extend from 14,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 18,000 feet above MSL and would directly underlie all but the southwest corner of the existing Currie/Tippet Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) from 18,000 to 58,000 feet above MSL. The proposal would include training flights in the White Elk MOA, increased operations in the existing ATCAA airspace, use of chaff and flares in the MOA and ATCAA, and supersonic flight in the overlying ATCAA. The Air Force would also request the Federal Aviation Administration to extend allowable use of the Currie/Tippet ATCAA for more than eight weeks annually. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expanded airspace would allow the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings to benefit from a complete training program, covering all the capabilities of the F-16. All pilots graduating from the program would achieve combat-ready status. By complying with all training mandates, pilots leaving the program after the MOA was established would be enabled to properly perform their duties with respect to national defense. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In conducting 9,590 sortie operations annually the MOA operations would eliminate use of the airspace by commercial airline uses. Interactions between F-16 aircraft and gliders could occur. During operations, five sonic booms would be heard during an average 10-day period at any given location. Noise heard in wilderness areas would increase, but remain low. Visual observance of contrails would increase as well. JF - EPA number: 080313, 266 pages, August 8, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Safety KW - Sonic Booms KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Hill Air Force Base KW - Utah KW - Utah Test and Training Range KW - White Elk Military Operations Area UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+ELK+MILITARY+OPERATIONS+AREA%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WHITE+ELK+MILITARY+OPERATIONS+AREA%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Air Force, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; AF N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN EVACUATION LIFELINE, HORRY AND GEORGETOWN COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 16375973; 13537 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a freeway on new location in southeastern Horry County and northeastern Georgetown County, South Carolina is proposed. The coast of South Carolina is subject to the destructive forces of hurricanes. The South Strand and Waccamaw Neck areas, which are experiencing rapid population growth, are isolated from the mainland by the Waccamaw River. The bridge crossing the river lies 40 miles southwest US 17 in Georgetown. This distance places residents at higher risk of finding themselves unable to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. The study corridor for the facility, to be known as the Southern Evacuation LifeLine (SELL), is bounded by US 501, the Pee Dee River, and the Atlantic Ocean. The SELL would extend from the US 501/South Carolina (SC) 22 interchange nine miles northwest of Conway to SC 31 (Carolina Bays Parkway) west of Myrtle Beach or to US 17 in either the southeastern tip of Horry County or the northeastern tip of Georgetown County, depending on the alternative selected. Ten alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would terminate on US 17 south of Holmestown Road. The freeway would consist of a four-lane, controlled-access, divided highway within a 400-foot rights-of-way along most of the alignment. Opposing lanes would be separated by a grass median, and frontage roads would be provided where necessary to maintain local access and continuity. The project would include a bridge over the Waccamaw River. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide the region with improved hurricane evacuation, congestion relief, and improved access to needed services and employment opportunities east and west of the Waccamaw River. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would cross 10 drainages, displacing 334 acres of wetlands, result in the loss of 825 acres of farmland, fragment wildlife habitat, require the displacement of 17 residences, 90 planned residential sites, two businesses, and five other structures. The SELL would traverse an area identified for possible future inclusion in the Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge. One hazardous waste site would b encountered by workers. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 15 sensitive receptor sites. Highway infrastructure would mar the otherwise rural and forested landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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: 080312, 274 pages (oversized), CD-ROM, August 7, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+EVACUATION+LIFELINE%2C+HORRY+AND+GEORGETOWN+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+EVACUATION+LIFELINE%2C+HORRY+AND+GEORGETOWN+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 756825227; 13536-080311_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements at Denver Union Station (DUS) in lower downtown Denver, Colorado is proposed. Various planning studies have shown that population and employment levels in the metropolitan Denver area are likely to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030. In response to this anticipated growth, the region has identified several transportation mode solutions such as bus rapid transit, light rail, passenger rail, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes to help relieve the expected congestion, improve air quality, and offer additional transportation options to the public. The proposed action (Vision Plan Alternative) would represent the full build-out of the transportation improvements identified in the Denver Union Station Master Plan (September 2004) over a 20-year period. Phase I of the Vision Plan Alternative, which has been funded, would include construction of a below-grade light rail station consisting of three tracks and platforms, enhanced at-grade passenger rail services, relocation of the existing Sixteenth Street Mall Shuttle turnaround, and related site improvements. A boarding plaza would be provided for bus service on the west side of the DUS. The full build-out would facilitate the accommodation of a large number of public and private transportation service providers, transportation-related facilities, and planned passenger services. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance the functioning of DUS as a multimodal transportation center serving the metropolitan Denver region and the state of Colorado. Improving DUS would bring together the various modes of transportation planned for the region into one place, providing an efficient and convenient access to and from the downtown Denver area. Opportunities for joint economic development in the mixed-use facility and the surrounding area would be provided. The existing historic character of DUS and its environs would be rehabilitated and restored. Appropriate urban design and neighborhood cohesiveness would be promoted. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station developments would partially displace four properties within 0.5 acre of rights-of-way. Additional facilities at DUS would alter the historically significant visual appearance of the station and its environs somewhat. Noise levels in areas adjacent to the passenger rail tracks and bus lanes would exceed federal standards. Subsurface features would likely require permanent dewatering activities, potentially affecting recharge and depth of the groundwater aquifer. An estimated 47 utilities would be affected by the Vision Plan Alternative, while Phase I activities would affect 43 such facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0273D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080311, Final EIS--536 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, August 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 756825084; 13536-080311_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements at Denver Union Station (DUS) in lower downtown Denver, Colorado is proposed. Various planning studies have shown that population and employment levels in the metropolitan Denver area are likely to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030. In response to this anticipated growth, the region has identified several transportation mode solutions such as bus rapid transit, light rail, passenger rail, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes to help relieve the expected congestion, improve air quality, and offer additional transportation options to the public. The proposed action (Vision Plan Alternative) would represent the full build-out of the transportation improvements identified in the Denver Union Station Master Plan (September 2004) over a 20-year period. Phase I of the Vision Plan Alternative, which has been funded, would include construction of a below-grade light rail station consisting of three tracks and platforms, enhanced at-grade passenger rail services, relocation of the existing Sixteenth Street Mall Shuttle turnaround, and related site improvements. A boarding plaza would be provided for bus service on the west side of the DUS. The full build-out would facilitate the accommodation of a large number of public and private transportation service providers, transportation-related facilities, and planned passenger services. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance the functioning of DUS as a multimodal transportation center serving the metropolitan Denver region and the state of Colorado. Improving DUS would bring together the various modes of transportation planned for the region into one place, providing an efficient and convenient access to and from the downtown Denver area. Opportunities for joint economic development in the mixed-use facility and the surrounding area would be provided. The existing historic character of DUS and its environs would be rehabilitated and restored. Appropriate urban design and neighborhood cohesiveness would be promoted. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station developments would partially displace four properties within 0.5 acre of rights-of-way. Additional facilities at DUS would alter the historically significant visual appearance of the station and its environs somewhat. Noise levels in areas adjacent to the passenger rail tracks and bus lanes would exceed federal standards. Subsurface features would likely require permanent dewatering activities, potentially affecting recharge and depth of the groundwater aquifer. An estimated 47 utilities would be affected by the Vision Plan Alternative, while Phase I activities would affect 43 such facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0273D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080311, Final EIS--536 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, August 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 756824770; 13536-080311_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements at Denver Union Station (DUS) in lower downtown Denver, Colorado is proposed. Various planning studies have shown that population and employment levels in the metropolitan Denver area are likely to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030. In response to this anticipated growth, the region has identified several transportation mode solutions such as bus rapid transit, light rail, passenger rail, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes to help relieve the expected congestion, improve air quality, and offer additional transportation options to the public. The proposed action (Vision Plan Alternative) would represent the full build-out of the transportation improvements identified in the Denver Union Station Master Plan (September 2004) over a 20-year period. Phase I of the Vision Plan Alternative, which has been funded, would include construction of a below-grade light rail station consisting of three tracks and platforms, enhanced at-grade passenger rail services, relocation of the existing Sixteenth Street Mall Shuttle turnaround, and related site improvements. A boarding plaza would be provided for bus service on the west side of the DUS. The full build-out would facilitate the accommodation of a large number of public and private transportation service providers, transportation-related facilities, and planned passenger services. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance the functioning of DUS as a multimodal transportation center serving the metropolitan Denver region and the state of Colorado. Improving DUS would bring together the various modes of transportation planned for the region into one place, providing an efficient and convenient access to and from the downtown Denver area. Opportunities for joint economic development in the mixed-use facility and the surrounding area would be provided. The existing historic character of DUS and its environs would be rehabilitated and restored. Appropriate urban design and neighborhood cohesiveness would be promoted. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station developments would partially displace four properties within 0.5 acre of rights-of-way. Additional facilities at DUS would alter the historically significant visual appearance of the station and its environs somewhat. Noise levels in areas adjacent to the passenger rail tracks and bus lanes would exceed federal standards. Subsurface features would likely require permanent dewatering activities, potentially affecting recharge and depth of the groundwater aquifer. An estimated 47 utilities would be affected by the Vision Plan Alternative, while Phase I activities would affect 43 such facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0273D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080311, Final EIS--536 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, August 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 16375935; 13536 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements at Denver Union Station (DUS) in lower downtown Denver, Colorado is proposed. Various planning studies have shown that population and employment levels in the metropolitan Denver area are likely to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030. In response to this anticipated growth, the region has identified several transportation mode solutions such as bus rapid transit, light rail, passenger rail, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes to help relieve the expected congestion, improve air quality, and offer additional transportation options to the public. The proposed action (Vision Plan Alternative) would represent the full build-out of the transportation improvements identified in the Denver Union Station Master Plan (September 2004) over a 20-year period. Phase I of the Vision Plan Alternative, which has been funded, would include construction of a below-grade light rail station consisting of three tracks and platforms, enhanced at-grade passenger rail services, relocation of the existing Sixteenth Street Mall Shuttle turnaround, and related site improvements. A boarding plaza would be provided for bus service on the west side of the DUS. The full build-out would facilitate the accommodation of a large number of public and private transportation service providers, transportation-related facilities, and planned passenger services. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance the functioning of DUS as a multimodal transportation center serving the metropolitan Denver region and the state of Colorado. Improving DUS would bring together the various modes of transportation planned for the region into one place, providing an efficient and convenient access to and from the downtown Denver area. Opportunities for joint economic development in the mixed-use facility and the surrounding area would be provided. The existing historic character of DUS and its environs would be rehabilitated and restored. Appropriate urban design and neighborhood cohesiveness would be promoted. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station developments would partially displace four properties within 0.5 acre of rights-of-way. Additional facilities at DUS would alter the historically significant visual appearance of the station and its environs somewhat. Noise levels in areas adjacent to the passenger rail tracks and bus lanes would exceed federal standards. Subsurface features would likely require permanent dewatering activities, potentially affecting recharge and depth of the groundwater aquifer. An estimated 47 utilities would be affected by the Vision Plan Alternative, while Phase I activities would affect 43 such facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0273D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080311, Final EIS--536 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, August 5, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION (Docket No. USGS-2006-24644). AN - 16388601; 13530 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater offshore liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal port in the Gulf of Mexico 62.6 miles south of Fort Morgan, Alabama are proposed. The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal (BOET), owned and operated by TORP Terminal LP (the applicant), would be capable of simultaneously mooring two LNG carriers with capacities of up to 8.8 million cubic feet. The LNG carriers would be offloaded one at a time using one of two HiLoad units consisting of open-loop shell-and-tube vaporizers. HiLoad Technology consists of remotely-operated floating LNG transfer and regasification units that connect with the hull of the LNG carriers. The HiLoad units would regasify LNG and deliver natural gas to seafloor pipelines that connect to a support platform approximately one mile from the HiLoad Units. At the support platform, the natural gas would be metered and sent out via interconnect pipelines to four existing offshore pipelines that connect to onshore a natural gas transmission pipeline system. BOET's average throughput capacity would be 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day (Bscfd), and peak throughput capacity would be 1.4 Bscfd. BOET's major components would include a support platform, two HiLoad units and parking systems for the units, and approximately 24.7 miles of new submarine pipeline. These components would be fabricated onshore at existing sites in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. No new onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities would be developed under this proposal. BOET's offshore construction would be expected to require approximately seven months, with startup of commercial operations anticipated in 2010Onshore support would be provided by existing facilities in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers Alternative Actions with respect to deepwater port designs, deepwater port locations, LNG vaporization technologies, onshore fabrication sites, and offshore interconnect pipeline routes, as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal port would provide a safe, effective means of importing natural gas into the United States from foreign sources. The port and terminal facilities would provide for the increasing demand for natural gas in the southern United States and elsewhere in the country and could replace more expensive, less environmentally friendly oil-fired generators and heating units in some cases. The facilities would promote the development of oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf by affording an economic and safe means of transporting oil and natural gas to the mainland. Construction employment would provide jobs for local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Submarine pipeline construction would temporarily disturb benthic habitat and release sediments into the water column. Routine discharges from BOET and the associated would result in the continuous introduction of small amounts of pollutants into the water column immediately around the facilities. Operation of BOET would result in increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the east-central Gulf, increasing delays due to vessel traffic levels and increasing the possibility of vessel collision with other vessels and with marine mammals. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0205D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080305, Volume I--661 pages, Volume II--655 pages, CD-ROM, August 1, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Texas KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+%28Docket+No.+USGS-2006-24644%29.&rft.title=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+%28Docket+No.+USGS-2006-24644%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 756824532; 13596-080371_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both Of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction With the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College , and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080371, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 756824492; 13596-080371_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both Of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction With the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College , and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080371, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 756824480; 13596-080371_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both Of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction With the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College , and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080371, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36403114; 13521-080289_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction with the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College, and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080289, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36403114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36396422; 13521-080289_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction with the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College, and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080289, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36393457; 13521-080289_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction with the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College, and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080289, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36392523; 13521-080289_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction with the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College, and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080289, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36392306; 13521-080289_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction with the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College, and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080289, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36384134; 13521-080289_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction with the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College, and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080289, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE TO IRVING AND DFW AIRPORT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 16389093; 13596 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Northwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line to Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas County, Texas are proposed. The 9.3-mile LRT project would extend from the Dallas Rapid Transit (DART) LRT line to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in Dallas to near Belt Line Roadway and Valley View Lane in Irving. Current a project travel patterns, levels of roadway congestion, and population and employment growth in the corridor call for the availability of an LRT alternative to automobile travel. The project at hand is included in the third phase of planning for the expansion of DART's LRT system. The initial phase included the 20-mile LRT Starter System that opened in 1996. The second phase involve the extensions along the North Central LRT Line to Richardson and Plano that were completed in late 2003 and the Northeast Line to Garland that was completed in late 2002. The third phase would involve the Northwest Corridor to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and the Southeast Corridor both Of which are in the final design stage, as well as the Northwest LRT Line to Irving/Dallas Fort Worth Airport. The currently proposed LRT would parallel State Highway (SH) 114 (Carpenter Freeway) from a junction With the Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line north of Bachman Station to the vicinity of Belt Line Road and Valley View Lane in Irving. Eight stations would provide access to the LRT line, but two of these stations, to be located at Loop 12 and South Las Colinas, would be deferred. The corridor would be linked at the south end via Farmers Branch/Carrollton Line to the Dallas Central Business District. Activity centers along the corridor would include Texas Stadium, the University of Dallas, Las Colinas , North Lake College , and the airport. The LRT line would branch off to Farmers Branch and Carrollton at Bachman Station and parallel several highways, including Spur 482 and SH 114 as it made its way through Irving to the airport. The branch LRT line would be accessed by stations located at the University of Dallas, Lake Carolyn, North Las Colinas, Carpenter Ranch, North Lake College, and Belt Line Road. Parking would be provided at four of these six stations, for a total of 1,800 parking spaces. Bus access would be provided to all stations throughout the system. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide connections to major activity centers, employment centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by DART. Mobility in the corridor would be enhanced as congestion would be decreased. Provision of an alternative to single-vehicle automobile travel would reduce noise and air pollutant levels regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development at the new stations and along the LRT line would require acquisition of 29.2 and 48.7 acres, respectively, resulting in the displacement of two businesses. The line would cross 58 streets and one railway line; two of the street crossings would result in road relocations and six streets would be closed. Moderate noise increases would be experienced by residents of 216 multi-family units. Elevated structures would mar visual aesthetics at North Lake College. The LRT line would encroach on Trinity River Elm Fork Greenbelt (L.B. Houston Park) and airport property. Construction workers would encounter up to 69 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 47107(a)16), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0086D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080371, Final EIS--544 pages, Plan and Profile Drawings--176 pages (oversized, July 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16389093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+CORRIDOR+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+LINE+TO+IRVING+AND+DFW+AIRPORT+IN+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS (REVISION OF THE DRAFT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2004). AN - 754904649; 14425 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12.1-mile section of State Highway 99 (SH 99), part of the Grand Parkway, on a new location from SH 249 to Interstate 45 (I-45), Harris and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The study area encompasses the northwest quadrant of a planned 170-mile third loop of SH 99 around Houston, to be known as the Grand Parkway. More specifically, the study area is bounded by SH 249 to the west I-45 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and the area just behind the proposed Grand Parkway to the north. The conceptual design for the facility would provide for a four-lane, at-grade, controlled access freeway within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The recommended alternative is comprised of a combination of alignments investigated during the study, and was proposed after the evaluation of alternative corridors, alternative transportation modes, and alternative alignments within corridors; the recommended alignment extends 12.o1 miles. Five alignment alternatives, extending from 12 to 16.5 miles, were considered in detail in a May 2006 revision of the February 2004 draft EIS. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative, a combination of previously considered alternatives, is estimated at $437.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. The freeway would reduce the through radial traffic on the current freeway system and would provide a needed transportation service in the study area to help reduce regional and local traffic congestion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 120 residences, nine businesses, one school property, one church, 2.3 acres of remnant prairie, 60 acres of wetlands, 16.6 acres of 100-year floodplain, 0.4 acre of floodway, 257.6 acres of prime farmland, 113.3 acres of farmland of state-wide importance. The highway would traverse 522 acres of land with a likelihood of containing high value archaeological sites, nine oil and gas well sites, 31 public and two private water wells, and five streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 451 sensitive receptor sites. Two hazardous materials sites would be encountered by construction workers. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, 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 EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 04-0332D, Volume 28, Number 3 and 06-0345D, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080296, Volumes I--427 pages and maps, Volume II--587 pages, Volume III--435 pages and maps, Volume IV(1)--844 pages, Volume IV(2)--907 pages, Volume IV(3)--888 pages, Volume IV(4)--944 pages, Volume IV(5)--876 pages, July 28, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-02-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - International Programs KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS+%28REVISION+OF+THE+DRAFT+ENVIROMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2004%29.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS+%28REVISION+OF+THE+DRAFT+ENVIROMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2004%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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 873131553; 14423-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Isle of Wight, Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway is higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. This final EIS considers two alternatives; the No-Build Alternative has been dropped from consideration since the publication of the draft EIS. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. The preferred alternative would be similar to CBA 1, except for a shift in alignment in Isle of Wight County; the alignment shift would reduce the number of residential displacements by 14 and the extent of wetland displaced by nine acres. Capital cost estimates for the preferred alternative range from $2.6 billion to $2.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 515 acres of agriculturally zoned land, 1,173 acres of prime farmland, 20 acres in agricultural and forestal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,182 acres of wetlands and forested land, 44 residences, one community facility, and one business. The cohesion of seven neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 11,752 linear feet of perennial stream and 21,336 linear feet of intermittent streams. The highway would traverse 56 acres of floodplains four regulated floodways. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 136 residences and one church; 53 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 35 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three sensitive areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0645D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080294, 87 pages and maps, July 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 754908462; 14423 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Isle of Wight, Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway is higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. This final EIS considers two alternatives; the No-Build Alternative has been dropped from consideration since the publication of the draft EIS. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. The preferred alternative would be similar to CBA 1, except for a shift in alignment in Isle of Wight County; the alignment shift would reduce the number of residential displacements by 14 and the extent of wetland displaced by nine acres. Capital cost estimates for the preferred alternative range from $2.6 billion to $2.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 515 acres of agriculturally zoned land, 1,173 acres of prime farmland, 20 acres in agricultural and forestal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,182 acres of wetlands and forested land, 44 residences, one community facility, and one business. The cohesion of seven neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 11,752 linear feet of perennial stream and 21,336 linear feet of intermittent streams. The highway would traverse 56 acres of floodplains four regulated floodways. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 136 residences and one church; 53 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 35 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three sensitive areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0645D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080294, 87 pages and maps, July 25, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AVALANCHE HAZARD REDUCTION BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK AND FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA. AN - 36413335; 13517 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a special use permit for the implementation of an explosive avalanche hazard reduction plan by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) in the Glacier National Park (GNP) and Flathead National Forest of Montana is proposed. Currently, BNSF employees, Amtrak passengers, freight, and equipment along the southern boundary of the GNP through John F. Stevens Canyon (between mileposts 1159 and 1164, are exposed to seasonal avalanche threats. Avalanches also cause delays with respect to commerce along the route. Historically the BNSF-constructed snowsheds in this area are the sole protection provided to trains using the route. Eight of the original nine snowsheds remain, but do not provide adequate avalanche protection. Explosive use for avalanche hazard reduction would constitute an unprecedented action in the GNP, and park authorities have serious concerns about impacts to park values, including winter wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, natural sound levels, and recommended wilderness study areas. However, the park concurs that there are avalanche hazard safety issues in the study area and agreed to consider BNSF's proposal as well as a range of alternatives. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wilderness values, threatened and endangered species and other wildlife, avalanche risk to humans and trains, impacts of explosives on US Highway 2, use of explosives in the GNP, the incorporation of wildlife crossings into BNSF snowsheds, visitor safety and experience under a plan adopting explosives, scenic resource impacts, and socioeconomics. This final EIS addresses four explosive and non-explosive avalanche reduction alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current, largely passive, avalanche response measures. Alternative B, the preferred Alternative, would involve the construction by BNSF of snowsheds covering tracks to protect trains against avalanches. Five new snowsheds, extending a total of 3,540 feet, would be constructed to address the current situation, in which seven avalanche paths have grown wider than the area protected by the existing snowsheds. Seven existing snowsheds would be extended a total of 1,500 feet for full avalanche path protection. Avalanche forecasting, non-explosive stability testing, and railroad restrictions would be implemented to reduce avalanche hazard during snowshed conditions. A permit would be granted for emergency explosive use in the event that human lives or resources are at risk and all other options have been exercised by BNSF. Alternative C would permit limited use of explosives to reduce avalanche hazards for up to 10 years upon a commitment from BSNF to construct the recommended snowsheds. Alternative D, which is the BNF proposal, would use explosives, including military artillery, indefinitely in the park for avalanche reduction; this alternative would include the extension of two snowsheds. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative ranges from $2.0 million to $8.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide additional protection to the approximately 50 freight trains and two Amtrak trains that pass through the canyon each day. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Snowshed construction would disturb soil in already disturbed areas around the rail line. Natural avalanche processes could continue to occur, requiring that BNSF to use avalanche forecasting and hazard analysis to impose delays and restrictions while snowsheds were built. Snowshed work would degrade the historic value of the existing snowsheds. If train delays and restrictions were not implemented in a timely manner, the preferred alternative would engender a significant risk of hazardous material spills. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0564D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080285, 111 pages, July 21, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 08-30 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Ice Environments KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Weather KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Flathead National Forest KW - Glacier National Park KW - Montana KW - Waterton Glacier International Peace Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AVALANCHE+HAZARD+REDUCTION+BY+BURLINGTON+NORTHERN+SANTA+FE+RAILWAY+IN+GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+FLATHEAD+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=AVALANCHE+HAZARD+REDUCTION+BY+BURLINGTON+NORTHERN+SANTA+FE+RAILWAY+IN+GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+FLATHEAD+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AVALANCHE HAZARD REDUCTION BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK AND FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - AVALANCHE HAZARD REDUCTION BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK AND FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA. AN - 36381545; 13517-080285_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a special use permit for the implementation of an explosive avalanche hazard reduction plan by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) in the Glacier National Park (GNP) and Flathead National Forest of Montana is proposed. Currently, BNSF employees, Amtrak passengers, freight, and equipment along the southern boundary of the GNP through John F. Stevens Canyon (between mileposts 1159 and 1164, are exposed to seasonal avalanche threats. Avalanches also cause delays with respect to commerce along the route. Historically the BNSF-constructed snowsheds in this area are the sole protection provided to trains using the route. Eight of the original nine snowsheds remain, but do not provide adequate avalanche protection. Explosive use for avalanche hazard reduction would constitute an unprecedented action in the GNP, and park authorities have serious concerns about impacts to park values, including winter wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, natural sound levels, and recommended wilderness study areas. However, the park concurs that there are avalanche hazard safety issues in the study area and agreed to consider BNSF's proposal as well as a range of alternatives. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wilderness values, threatened and endangered species and other wildlife, avalanche risk to humans and trains, impacts of explosives on US Highway 2, use of explosives in the GNP, the incorporation of wildlife crossings into BNSF snowsheds, visitor safety and experience under a plan adopting explosives, scenic resource impacts, and socioeconomics. This final EIS addresses four explosive and non-explosive avalanche reduction alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current, largely passive, avalanche response measures. Alternative B, the preferred Alternative, would involve the construction by BNSF of snowsheds covering tracks to protect trains against avalanches. Five new snowsheds, extending a total of 3,540 feet, would be constructed to address the current situation, in which seven avalanche paths have grown wider than the area protected by the existing snowsheds. Seven existing snowsheds would be extended a total of 1,500 feet for full avalanche path protection. Avalanche forecasting, non-explosive stability testing, and railroad restrictions would be implemented to reduce avalanche hazard during snowshed conditions. A permit would be granted for emergency explosive use in the event that human lives or resources are at risk and all other options have been exercised by BNSF. Alternative C would permit limited use of explosives to reduce avalanche hazards for up to 10 years upon a commitment from BSNF to construct the recommended snowsheds. Alternative D, which is the BNF proposal, would use explosives, including military artillery, indefinitely in the park for avalanche reduction; this alternative would include the extension of two snowsheds. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative ranges from $2.0 million to $8.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide additional protection to the approximately 50 freight trains and two Amtrak trains that pass through the canyon each day. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Snowshed construction would disturb soil in already disturbed areas around the rail line. Natural avalanche processes could continue to occur, requiring that BNSF to use avalanche forecasting and hazard analysis to impose delays and restrictions while snowsheds were built. Snowshed work would degrade the historic value of the existing snowsheds. If train delays and restrictions were not implemented in a timely manner, the preferred alternative would engender a significant risk of hazardous material spills. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0564D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080285, 111 pages, July 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 08-30 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Ice Environments KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Weather KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Flathead National Forest KW - Glacier National Park KW - Montana KW - Waterton Glacier International Peace Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AVALANCHE+HAZARD+REDUCTION+BY+BURLINGTON+NORTHERN+SANTA+FE+RAILWAY+IN+GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+FLATHEAD+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=AVALANCHE+HAZARD+REDUCTION+BY+BURLINGTON+NORTHERN+SANTA+FE+RAILWAY+IN+GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+FLATHEAD+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. AN - 36409138; 13507 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area is proposed. The port, to be known as Calypso, lies eight to 10 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Prot Everglades in water depths of 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload a LNG transport and regasification vessel (TRV) with a capacity of up to 140,000 cubic meters of LNG and a storage and regasification ship (SRS) with a capacity of 250,000 cubic meters of LNG. In addition the SRS would be designed to berth and unload LNG from conventional LNG carriers. The TRVs and the SRS would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop shell-and-tube vaporization system, and send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The unloading buoys would be connoted to the Calypso pipeline, a pipeline permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via two 2.5-mile long 30-inch-diameter pipelines located on the seabed. No onshore pipelines of LNG storage facilities would be associated with the proposed deepwater port. Calypso would have an acreage throughput capacity of 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfpd) and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 bscfpd. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of t he high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Approximately 167 million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0432D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080274, Final EIS--690 pages, Appendices--1,471 544 pages, CD-ROM, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36402808; 13508-080276_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36402808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36395236; 13508-080276_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36395236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. AN - 36394647; 13507-080274_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area is proposed. The port, to be known as Calypso, lies eight to 10 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Prot Everglades in water depths of 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload a LNG transport and regasification vessel (TRV) with a capacity of up to 140,000 cubic meters of LNG and a storage and regasification ship (SRS) with a capacity of 250,000 cubic meters of LNG. In addition the SRS would be designed to berth and unload LNG from conventional LNG carriers. The TRVs and the SRS would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop shell-and-tube vaporization system, and send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The unloading buoys would be connoted to the Calypso pipeline, a pipeline permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via two 2.5-mile long 30-inch-diameter pipelines located on the seabed. No onshore pipelines of LNG storage facilities would be associated with the proposed deepwater port. Calypso would have an acreage throughput capacity of 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfpd) and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 bscfpd. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of t he high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Approximately 167 million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0432D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080274, Final EIS--690 pages, Appendices--1,471 544 pages, CD-ROM, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. AN - 36394495; 13507-080274_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area is proposed. The port, to be known as Calypso, lies eight to 10 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Prot Everglades in water depths of 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload a LNG transport and regasification vessel (TRV) with a capacity of up to 140,000 cubic meters of LNG and a storage and regasification ship (SRS) with a capacity of 250,000 cubic meters of LNG. In addition the SRS would be designed to berth and unload LNG from conventional LNG carriers. The TRVs and the SRS would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop shell-and-tube vaporization system, and send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The unloading buoys would be connoted to the Calypso pipeline, a pipeline permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via two 2.5-mile long 30-inch-diameter pipelines located on the seabed. No onshore pipelines of LNG storage facilities would be associated with the proposed deepwater port. Calypso would have an acreage throughput capacity of 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfpd) and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 bscfpd. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of t he high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Approximately 167 million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0432D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080274, Final EIS--690 pages, Appendices--1,471 544 pages, CD-ROM, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36394238; 13508-080276_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36394238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36393298; 13508-080276_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36393298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36392729; 13508-080276_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36392729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. AN - 36392431; 13507-080274_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area is proposed. The port, to be known as Calypso, lies eight to 10 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Prot Everglades in water depths of 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload a LNG transport and regasification vessel (TRV) with a capacity of up to 140,000 cubic meters of LNG and a storage and regasification ship (SRS) with a capacity of 250,000 cubic meters of LNG. In addition the SRS would be designed to berth and unload LNG from conventional LNG carriers. The TRVs and the SRS would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop shell-and-tube vaporization system, and send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The unloading buoys would be connoted to the Calypso pipeline, a pipeline permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via two 2.5-mile long 30-inch-diameter pipelines located on the seabed. No onshore pipelines of LNG storage facilities would be associated with the proposed deepwater port. Calypso would have an acreage throughput capacity of 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfpd) and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 bscfpd. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of t he high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Approximately 167 million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0432D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080274, Final EIS--690 pages, Appendices--1,471 544 pages, CD-ROM, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36392186; 13508-080276_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36392186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. AN - 36391878; 13507-080274_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area is proposed. The port, to be known as Calypso, lies eight to 10 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Prot Everglades in water depths of 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload a LNG transport and regasification vessel (TRV) with a capacity of up to 140,000 cubic meters of LNG and a storage and regasification ship (SRS) with a capacity of 250,000 cubic meters of LNG. In addition the SRS would be designed to berth and unload LNG from conventional LNG carriers. The TRVs and the SRS would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop shell-and-tube vaporization system, and send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The unloading buoys would be connoted to the Calypso pipeline, a pipeline permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via two 2.5-mile long 30-inch-diameter pipelines located on the seabed. No onshore pipelines of LNG storage facilities would be associated with the proposed deepwater port. Calypso would have an acreage throughput capacity of 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfpd) and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 bscfpd. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of t he high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Approximately 167 million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0432D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080274, Final EIS--690 pages, Appendices--1,471 544 pages, CD-ROM, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36388536; 13508-080276_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36388536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. AN - 36388440; 13507-080274_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area is proposed. The port, to be known as Calypso, lies eight to 10 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Prot Everglades in water depths of 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload a LNG transport and regasification vessel (TRV) with a capacity of up to 140,000 cubic meters of LNG and a storage and regasification ship (SRS) with a capacity of 250,000 cubic meters of LNG. In addition the SRS would be designed to berth and unload LNG from conventional LNG carriers. The TRVs and the SRS would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop shell-and-tube vaporization system, and send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The unloading buoys would be connoted to the Calypso pipeline, a pipeline permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via two 2.5-mile long 30-inch-diameter pipelines located on the seabed. No onshore pipelines of LNG storage facilities would be associated with the proposed deepwater port. Calypso would have an acreage throughput capacity of 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfpd) and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 bscfpd. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of t he high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Approximately 167 million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0432D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080274, Final EIS--690 pages, Appendices--1,471 544 pages, CD-ROM, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080276/080276_0010.txt of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36388220; 13508-080276_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080276/080276_0010.txt KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36388220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36387151; 13508-080276_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36387151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36385161; 13508-080276_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36385161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. AN - 36385073; 13507-080274_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area is proposed. The port, to be known as Calypso, lies eight to 10 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Prot Everglades in water depths of 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload a LNG transport and regasification vessel (TRV) with a capacity of up to 140,000 cubic meters of LNG and a storage and regasification ship (SRS) with a capacity of 250,000 cubic meters of LNG. In addition the SRS would be designed to berth and unload LNG from conventional LNG carriers. The TRVs and the SRS would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop shell-and-tube vaporization system, and send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The unloading buoys would be connoted to the Calypso pipeline, a pipeline permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via two 2.5-mile long 30-inch-diameter pipelines located on the seabed. No onshore pipelines of LNG storage facilities would be associated with the proposed deepwater port. Calypso would have an acreage throughput capacity of 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfpd) and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 bscfpd. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of t he high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Approximately 167 million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0432D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080274, Final EIS--690 pages, Appendices--1,471 544 pages, CD-ROM, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - GOLD LINE CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ADAMS COUNTY, ARVADA, WHEAT RIDGE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36381885; 13508-080276_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Development of fixed guideway transit improvements in the Gold Line Corridor of the city and county of Denver, Adams County, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County, Colorado is proposed. Given the forecasts of population growth and increasing employment in major activity areas in the region, there is a need to provide both transit and highway improvements. Unless improvements are undertaken, automobile and bus travel times in the study area will increase by 35 percent by 2030. The proposed action would provide commuter rail transit, employing Electrical Multiple Unit technology, extending from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge. From Union Station to Pecos Street, the alignment would be shared with that of the Northwest Rail project. From West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the alignment would follow the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail rights-of-way. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a transportation systems management alternative, primarily involving optimization of bus service, and a No Action Alternative. Capital costs for the implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated at $609 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition to the commuter rail system serving the Denver metropolitan area would connect major activity centers, community resources, and other regional transit services provided by the Regional Transportation District. The light rail transit line would increase mobility in the corridor and provide an alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby decreasing congestion, reducing noise levels, and enhancing air quality in the area. The TSM alternative would optimize bus service in the corridor and areas radiating from the corridor without a major capital expenditure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the station location selected, the preferred alternative would require the displacement of 12 to 23 businesses for construction of the stations and an electric substation. Approximately 36 acres of railroad rights-of-way and 59.5 to 62 acres of private rights-of-way would be acquired. Four to five historic sites and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Seven recreation resource sites lie within 300 feet of the rail corridor, namely, Jim Baker Reservoir, Clear Creek Valley Park, Clear Creek Trail, Terrace Park, MacAvoy Park, Ralston Creek Trail, and Lewis Ralston Gold Strike Park. Operation of the rail line would result in noise emissions at levels in excess of federal standards at 192 single family homes, 10 multi-family buildings, one park building (MacAvoy House), one museum (Arvada Flour Mill), one school, and one institutional facility. Moderate noise level increases are expected at 304 single-family homes and 20 multi-family buildings. The rail system would interject a contrasting element into the cityscape from Union Station to Pecos Street and around all stations and the electrical substation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080276, Draft EIS--778 pages, Appendices A through E--501 pages, Appendices F through H--889 pages, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Museums KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/36381885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+DENVER%2C+ADAMS+COUNTY%2C+ARVADA%2C+WHEAT+RIDGE%2C+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - LEASE APPLICATION: CALYPSO LNG DEEPWATER PORT, OFF THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. AN - 36381791; 13507-080274_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area is proposed. The port, to be known as Calypso, lies eight to 10 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Prot Everglades in water depths of 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload a LNG transport and regasification vessel (TRV) with a capacity of up to 140,000 cubic meters of LNG and a storage and regasification ship (SRS) with a capacity of 250,000 cubic meters of LNG. In addition the SRS would be designed to berth and unload LNG from conventional LNG carriers. The TRVs and the SRS would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop shell-and-tube vaporization system, and send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The unloading buoys would be connoted to the Calypso pipeline, a pipeline permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via two 2.5-mile long 30-inch-diameter pipelines located on the seabed. No onshore pipelines of LNG storage facilities would be associated with the proposed deepwater port. Calypso would have an acreage throughput capacity of 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscfpd) and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 bscfpd. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of t he high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Approximately 167 million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0432D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080274, Final EIS--690 pages, Appendices--1,471 544 pages, CD-ROM, July 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.title=LEASE+APPLICATION%3A+CALYPSO+LNG+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+OFF+THE+EAST+COAST+OF+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US HIGHWAY 67--I-40 WEST, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1994). AN - 36410957; 13502 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided highway, built to interstate standards, between the Interstate 40 (I-40)/I-440 interchange and an interchange at Highway 67/Highway 430 in Pulaski County, Arkansas, is proposed. This final supplement to the final EIS of April 1994. Due to the extended passage of time since the filing of the final EIS while waiting for project funding, which has not yet occurred, a second EIS process was undertaken beginning in January 2007 with the publication of a draft supplemental EIS. Pulaski County is located in the center of the state at the junctions of I-40 and I-30 and US Highways 65 and 67/167. The county contains the largest metropolitan area in the state. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), the 12.1-mile highway would be constructed on a new alignment with an average rights-of-way width of 300 feet. The facility would have two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, separated by a variable-width median. Access would be fully controlled via five interchanges and several grade separation structures. All seven alignment alternatives share the same alignment of 6.9 miles. The remainder of the preferred alternative would extend 5.8 miles. Under the preferred alternative, the alignment would begin at the I-40/I-440 interchange, proceed to the northeast across Camp Joseph T. Robinson, loop around the North Little Rock metropolitan area, and end with an interchange at US 67/167, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Kiehl Avenue interchange. The eastern terminus would provide a direct connection with the previously approved North Belt Freeway connecting US 67/167 and I-440 at I-40. Interchanges would be provided at I-40/I-430, State Highway (SH) 365, Batesville Pike, SH 107, Brockington Road, and US 67/167. Grade separations would be provided at the Union Pacific Railroad crossing and Oneida, as well as at six locations within Camp Robinson to allow for uninterrupted operations at that military facility. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $276 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The highway would provide a direct east-west facility connecting the developing northeastern and northwestern portions of the county. Congestion would be decreased on existing streets and highways paralleling the corridor, particularly SH 107 and US 67/167, improving safety on these arterials. The highway would be consistent with the longstanding Pulaski Area Transportation and Land Use Plans by providing an east-west bypass of the metropolitan area, providing access to high-growth areas in the northern portion of the county, and serving as the northern link in the metro area's circumferential freeway. Provision of the highway would result in significant economic savings and the prevention of hundreds of accidents each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 26 residential owners, 11 residential tenants, and eight businesses. Five elderly households and three low-income households would be displaced. In addition, the highway would displace 151 acres within a military base, 442 acres of undeveloped agricultural land, 114 acres of prime farmlands, 84 acres of wetlands, and 99 acres of miscellaneous land. The highway would encroach on 13,600 linear feet of special flood hazard area and traverse 22 intermittent and two perennial streams. Numerous sensitive receptors along the new alignment would be exposed to noise levels in excess of federal standards. Hazardous waste sites to be encountered during construction would include five illegal dumps, two landfills, and two underground storage tanks. The project would impact 10 historic buildings, one historic bridge, three historic roads, and seven archaeological sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, 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 supplemental EIS, see 07-0139D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080269, 362 pages and maps, July 7, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-91-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+67--I-40+WEST%2C+PULASKI+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1994%29.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+67--I-40+WEST%2C+PULASKI+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US HIGHWAY 67--I-40 WEST, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1994). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - US HIGHWAY 67--I-40 WEST, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1994). AN - 36391871; 13502-080269_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided highway, built to interstate standards, between the Interstate 40 (I-40)/I-440 interchange and an interchange at Highway 67/Highway 430 in Pulaski County, Arkansas, is proposed. This final supplement to the final EIS of April 1994. Due to the extended passage of time since the filing of the final EIS while waiting for project funding, which has not yet occurred, a second EIS process was undertaken beginning in January 2007 with the publication of a draft supplemental EIS. Pulaski County is located in the center of the state at the junctions of I-40 and I-30 and US Highways 65 and 67/167. The county contains the largest metropolitan area in the state. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), the 12.1-mile highway would be constructed on a new alignment with an average rights-of-way width of 300 feet. The facility would have two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, separated by a variable-width median. Access would be fully controlled via five interchanges and several grade separation structures. All seven alignment alternatives share the same alignment of 6.9 miles. The remainder of the preferred alternative would extend 5.8 miles. Under the preferred alternative, the alignment would begin at the I-40/I-440 interchange, proceed to the northeast across Camp Joseph T. Robinson, loop around the North Little Rock metropolitan area, and end with an interchange at US 67/167, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Kiehl Avenue interchange. The eastern terminus would provide a direct connection with the previously approved North Belt Freeway connecting US 67/167 and I-440 at I-40. Interchanges would be provided at I-40/I-430, State Highway (SH) 365, Batesville Pike, SH 107, Brockington Road, and US 67/167. Grade separations would be provided at the Union Pacific Railroad crossing and Oneida, as well as at six locations within Camp Robinson to allow for uninterrupted operations at that military facility. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $276 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The highway would provide a direct east-west facility connecting the developing northeastern and northwestern portions of the county. Congestion would be decreased on existing streets and highways paralleling the corridor, particularly SH 107 and US 67/167, improving safety on these arterials. The highway would be consistent with the longstanding Pulaski Area Transportation and Land Use Plans by providing an east-west bypass of the metropolitan area, providing access to high-growth areas in the northern portion of the county, and serving as the northern link in the metro area's circumferential freeway. Provision of the highway would result in significant economic savings and the prevention of hundreds of accidents each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 26 residential owners, 11 residential tenants, and eight businesses. Five elderly households and three low-income households would be displaced. In addition, the highway would displace 151 acres within a military base, 442 acres of undeveloped agricultural land, 114 acres of prime farmlands, 84 acres of wetlands, and 99 acres of miscellaneous land. The highway would encroach on 13,600 linear feet of special flood hazard area and traverse 22 intermittent and two perennial streams. Numerous sensitive receptors along the new alignment would be exposed to noise levels in excess of federal standards. Hazardous waste sites to be encountered during construction would include five illegal dumps, two landfills, and two underground storage tanks. The project would impact 10 historic buildings, one historic bridge, three historic roads, and seven archaeological sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, 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 supplemental EIS, see 07-0139D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080269, 362 pages and maps, July 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-91-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+67--I-40+WEST%2C+PULASKI+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1994%29.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+67--I-40+WEST%2C+PULASKI+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US HIGHWAY 67--I-40 WEST, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1994). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - US HIGHWAY 67--I-40 WEST, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1994). AN - 36383280; 13502-080269_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane divided highway, built to interstate standards, between the Interstate 40 (I-40)/I-440 interchange and an interchange at Highway 67/Highway 430 in Pulaski County, Arkansas, is proposed. This final supplement to the final EIS of April 1994. Due to the extended passage of time since the filing of the final EIS while waiting for project funding, which has not yet occurred, a second EIS process was undertaken beginning in January 2007 with the publication of a draft supplemental EIS. Pulaski County is located in the center of the state at the junctions of I-40 and I-30 and US Highways 65 and 67/167. The county contains the largest metropolitan area in the state. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), the 12.1-mile highway would be constructed on a new alignment with an average rights-of-way width of 300 feet. The facility would have two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, separated by a variable-width median. Access would be fully controlled via five interchanges and several grade separation structures. All seven alignment alternatives share the same alignment of 6.9 miles. The remainder of the preferred alternative would extend 5.8 miles. Under the preferred alternative, the alignment would begin at the I-40/I-440 interchange, proceed to the northeast across Camp Joseph T. Robinson, loop around the North Little Rock metropolitan area, and end with an interchange at US 67/167, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Kiehl Avenue interchange. The eastern terminus would provide a direct connection with the previously approved North Belt Freeway connecting US 67/167 and I-440 at I-40. Interchanges would be provided at I-40/I-430, State Highway (SH) 365, Batesville Pike, SH 107, Brockington Road, and US 67/167. Grade separations would be provided at the Union Pacific Railroad crossing and Oneida, as well as at six locations within Camp Robinson to allow for uninterrupted operations at that military facility. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $276 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The highway would provide a direct east-west facility connecting the developing northeastern and northwestern portions of the county. Congestion would be decreased on existing streets and highways paralleling the corridor, particularly SH 107 and US 67/167, improving safety on these arterials. The highway would be consistent with the longstanding Pulaski Area Transportation and Land Use Plans by providing an east-west bypass of the metropolitan area, providing access to high-growth areas in the northern portion of the county, and serving as the northern link in the metro area's circumferential freeway. Provision of the highway would result in significant economic savings and the prevention of hundreds of accidents each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 26 residential owners, 11 residential tenants, and eight businesses. Five elderly households and three low-income households would be displaced. In addition, the highway would displace 151 acres within a military base, 442 acres of undeveloped agricultural land, 114 acres of prime farmlands, 84 acres of wetlands, and 99 acres of miscellaneous land. The highway would encroach on 13,600 linear feet of special flood hazard area and traverse 22 intermittent and two perennial streams. Numerous sensitive receptors along the new alignment would be exposed to noise levels in excess of federal standards. Hazardous waste sites to be encountered during construction would include five illegal dumps, two landfills, and two underground storage tanks. The project would impact 10 historic buildings, one historic bridge, three historic roads, and seven archaeological sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, 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 supplemental EIS, see 07-0139D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080269, 362 pages and maps, July 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-91-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+67--I-40+WEST%2C+PULASKI+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1994%29.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+67--I-40+WEST%2C+PULASKI+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). AN - 36410241; 13501 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a light rail transit (LRT) facility or a busway/bus rapid transit (BRT) facility within the Central Corridor, extending 11 miles between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota is proposed. The Central Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and connects some of the largest traffic generators in the cities. In addition, the neighborhoods located in the study area are some of the most cohesive in the metropolitan area. Since 1981, the Central Corridor has been a priority focus for bus transit services and capital transportation investment. Three alternatives, including a No Action/Baseline Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of April 2006. The Baseline Alternative would provide for already planned improvements, including the creation of a new route, extension of other routes, and frequency improvements on many of the remaining routes. One action alternative would provide an LRT facility along University Avenue, while the other would provide a Busway/BRT facility along the same corridor. The LRT Alternative would run from downtown Minneapolis, through the University of Minnesota, thence on University Avenue to downtown St. Paul. The LRT would be accessed via one station in downtown Minneapolis, four stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and five stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The Busway/BRT Alternative would follow the same route as the LRT Alternative. The bus facility would be accessed via four stations in downtown Minneapolis, five stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and six stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The LRT Alternative has been selected as the locally preferred alternative. The draft EIS included capital costs for the LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives; the costs were estimated at $840 million and $241 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Annual 2020 operating costs for the Baseline, LRT, and Busway/BRT alternatives were estimated at $90. million, $97.2 million, and $94.0 million, respectively. This supplement to the draft EIS updates the earlier document by outlining modifications to the preferred since April 2006. This is done by presenting modifications as key project elements, as follows: 1) an engineering modification to optimize the connection for the Central Corridor LRT to the existing Hiawatha LRT in downtown Minneapolis; 2) an at-grade LRT alignment on Washington Avenue running from the Washington Avenue Bridge to Oak Street; 3) three future infill stations at Hamline, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; 4) engineering modifications to the alignment along University Street adjacent to the Capitol Area; 5) two alignment alternatives that would extend the alignment previously proposed beyond the St. Paul Union Depot Headhouse; 6) an outline of the characteristic of three-car train operation; 7) the number and general location of substations required and the location of the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in downtown St. Paul; and 8) modifications to the Washington Avenue Bridge to accommodate operation of the LRT on the existing structure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing connecting the downtown areas and providing access from all major points in between, the LRT or Busway/BRT facility would promote economic opportunity and investment in the metropolitan area, enhance community cohesion and connectivity and the residential and commercial environments, and improve transportation and mobility regionally. The emission of transportation-related air pollutants within the study area would decline somewhat under either action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, Construction activities would result in degradation of groundwater resources in the short-term due to dewatering. Noise generated during systems operation would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 12 sensitive receptor sites under the LRT Alternative and 113 such sites under the Busway/BRT Alternative. Construction workers would encounter seven hazardous waste sites under the Busway/BRT alternative and 10 such sites under the LRT Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0410D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080268, Supplemental Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, July 3, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). [Part 7 of 7] T2 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). AN - 36395022; 13501-080268_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a light rail transit (LRT) facility or a busway/bus rapid transit (BRT) facility within the Central Corridor, extending 11 miles between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota is proposed. The Central Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and connects some of the largest traffic generators in the cities. In addition, the neighborhoods located in the study area are some of the most cohesive in the metropolitan area. Since 1981, the Central Corridor has been a priority focus for bus transit services and capital transportation investment. Three alternatives, including a No Action/Baseline Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of April 2006. The Baseline Alternative would provide for already planned improvements, including the creation of a new route, extension of other routes, and frequency improvements on many of the remaining routes. One action alternative would provide an LRT facility along University Avenue, while the other would provide a Busway/BRT facility along the same corridor. The LRT Alternative would run from downtown Minneapolis, through the University of Minnesota, thence on University Avenue to downtown St. Paul. The LRT would be accessed via one station in downtown Minneapolis, four stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and five stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The Busway/BRT Alternative would follow the same route as the LRT Alternative. The bus facility would be accessed via four stations in downtown Minneapolis, five stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and six stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The LRT Alternative has been selected as the locally preferred alternative. The draft EIS included capital costs for the LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives; the costs were estimated at $840 million and $241 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Annual 2020 operating costs for the Baseline, LRT, and Busway/BRT alternatives were estimated at $90. million, $97.2 million, and $94.0 million, respectively. This supplement to the draft EIS updates the earlier document by outlining modifications to the preferred since April 2006. This is done by presenting modifications as key project elements, as follows: 1) an engineering modification to optimize the connection for the Central Corridor LRT to the existing Hiawatha LRT in downtown Minneapolis; 2) an at-grade LRT alignment on Washington Avenue running from the Washington Avenue Bridge to Oak Street; 3) three future infill stations at Hamline, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; 4) engineering modifications to the alignment along University Street adjacent to the Capitol Area; 5) two alignment alternatives that would extend the alignment previously proposed beyond the St. Paul Union Depot Headhouse; 6) an outline of the characteristic of three-car train operation; 7) the number and general location of substations required and the location of the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in downtown St. Paul; and 8) modifications to the Washington Avenue Bridge to accommodate operation of the LRT on the existing structure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing connecting the downtown areas and providing access from all major points in between, the LRT or Busway/BRT facility would promote economic opportunity and investment in the metropolitan area, enhance community cohesion and connectivity and the residential and commercial environments, and improve transportation and mobility regionally. The emission of transportation-related air pollutants within the study area would decline somewhat under either action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, Construction activities would result in degradation of groundwater resources in the short-term due to dewatering. Noise generated during systems operation would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 12 sensitive receptor sites under the LRT Alternative and 113 such sites under the Busway/BRT Alternative. Construction workers would encounter seven hazardous waste sites under the Busway/BRT alternative and 10 such sites under the LRT Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0410D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080268, Supplemental Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, July 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36395022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). [Part 6 of 7] T2 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). AN - 36394917; 13501-080268_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a light rail transit (LRT) facility or a busway/bus rapid transit (BRT) facility within the Central Corridor, extending 11 miles between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota is proposed. The Central Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and connects some of the largest traffic generators in the cities. In addition, the neighborhoods located in the study area are some of the most cohesive in the metropolitan area. Since 1981, the Central Corridor has been a priority focus for bus transit services and capital transportation investment. Three alternatives, including a No Action/Baseline Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of April 2006. The Baseline Alternative would provide for already planned improvements, including the creation of a new route, extension of other routes, and frequency improvements on many of the remaining routes. One action alternative would provide an LRT facility along University Avenue, while the other would provide a Busway/BRT facility along the same corridor. The LRT Alternative would run from downtown Minneapolis, through the University of Minnesota, thence on University Avenue to downtown St. Paul. The LRT would be accessed via one station in downtown Minneapolis, four stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and five stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The Busway/BRT Alternative would follow the same route as the LRT Alternative. The bus facility would be accessed via four stations in downtown Minneapolis, five stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and six stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The LRT Alternative has been selected as the locally preferred alternative. The draft EIS included capital costs for the LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives; the costs were estimated at $840 million and $241 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Annual 2020 operating costs for the Baseline, LRT, and Busway/BRT alternatives were estimated at $90. million, $97.2 million, and $94.0 million, respectively. This supplement to the draft EIS updates the earlier document by outlining modifications to the preferred since April 2006. This is done by presenting modifications as key project elements, as follows: 1) an engineering modification to optimize the connection for the Central Corridor LRT to the existing Hiawatha LRT in downtown Minneapolis; 2) an at-grade LRT alignment on Washington Avenue running from the Washington Avenue Bridge to Oak Street; 3) three future infill stations at Hamline, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; 4) engineering modifications to the alignment along University Street adjacent to the Capitol Area; 5) two alignment alternatives that would extend the alignment previously proposed beyond the St. Paul Union Depot Headhouse; 6) an outline of the characteristic of three-car train operation; 7) the number and general location of substations required and the location of the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in downtown St. Paul; and 8) modifications to the Washington Avenue Bridge to accommodate operation of the LRT on the existing structure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing connecting the downtown areas and providing access from all major points in between, the LRT or Busway/BRT facility would promote economic opportunity and investment in the metropolitan area, enhance community cohesion and connectivity and the residential and commercial environments, and improve transportation and mobility regionally. The emission of transportation-related air pollutants within the study area would decline somewhat under either action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, Construction activities would result in degradation of groundwater resources in the short-term due to dewatering. Noise generated during systems operation would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 12 sensitive receptor sites under the LRT Alternative and 113 such sites under the Busway/BRT Alternative. Construction workers would encounter seven hazardous waste sites under the Busway/BRT alternative and 10 such sites under the LRT Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0410D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080268, Supplemental Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, July 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). [Part 2 of 7] T2 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). AN - 36394591; 13501-080268_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a light rail transit (LRT) facility or a busway/bus rapid transit (BRT) facility within the Central Corridor, extending 11 miles between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota is proposed. The Central Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and connects some of the largest traffic generators in the cities. In addition, the neighborhoods located in the study area are some of the most cohesive in the metropolitan area. Since 1981, the Central Corridor has been a priority focus for bus transit services and capital transportation investment. Three alternatives, including a No Action/Baseline Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of April 2006. The Baseline Alternative would provide for already planned improvements, including the creation of a new route, extension of other routes, and frequency improvements on many of the remaining routes. One action alternative would provide an LRT facility along University Avenue, while the other would provide a Busway/BRT facility along the same corridor. The LRT Alternative would run from downtown Minneapolis, through the University of Minnesota, thence on University Avenue to downtown St. Paul. The LRT would be accessed via one station in downtown Minneapolis, four stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and five stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The Busway/BRT Alternative would follow the same route as the LRT Alternative. The bus facility would be accessed via four stations in downtown Minneapolis, five stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and six stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The LRT Alternative has been selected as the locally preferred alternative. The draft EIS included capital costs for the LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives; the costs were estimated at $840 million and $241 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Annual 2020 operating costs for the Baseline, LRT, and Busway/BRT alternatives were estimated at $90. million, $97.2 million, and $94.0 million, respectively. This supplement to the draft EIS updates the earlier document by outlining modifications to the preferred since April 2006. This is done by presenting modifications as key project elements, as follows: 1) an engineering modification to optimize the connection for the Central Corridor LRT to the existing Hiawatha LRT in downtown Minneapolis; 2) an at-grade LRT alignment on Washington Avenue running from the Washington Avenue Bridge to Oak Street; 3) three future infill stations at Hamline, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; 4) engineering modifications to the alignment along University Street adjacent to the Capitol Area; 5) two alignment alternatives that would extend the alignment previously proposed beyond the St. Paul Union Depot Headhouse; 6) an outline of the characteristic of three-car train operation; 7) the number and general location of substations required and the location of the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in downtown St. Paul; and 8) modifications to the Washington Avenue Bridge to accommodate operation of the LRT on the existing structure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing connecting the downtown areas and providing access from all major points in between, the LRT or Busway/BRT facility would promote economic opportunity and investment in the metropolitan area, enhance community cohesion and connectivity and the residential and commercial environments, and improve transportation and mobility regionally. The emission of transportation-related air pollutants within the study area would decline somewhat under either action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, Construction activities would result in degradation of groundwater resources in the short-term due to dewatering. Noise generated during systems operation would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 12 sensitive receptor sites under the LRT Alternative and 113 such sites under the Busway/BRT Alternative. Construction workers would encounter seven hazardous waste sites under the Busway/BRT alternative and 10 such sites under the LRT Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0410D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080268, Supplemental Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, July 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). [Part 3 of 7] T2 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). AN - 36394478; 13501-080268_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a light rail transit (LRT) facility or a busway/bus rapid transit (BRT) facility within the Central Corridor, extending 11 miles between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota is proposed. The Central Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and connects some of the largest traffic generators in the cities. In addition, the neighborhoods located in the study area are some of the most cohesive in the metropolitan area. Since 1981, the Central Corridor has been a priority focus for bus transit services and capital transportation investment. Three alternatives, including a No Action/Baseline Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of April 2006. The Baseline Alternative would provide for already planned improvements, including the creation of a new route, extension of other routes, and frequency improvements on many of the remaining routes. One action alternative would provide an LRT facility along University Avenue, while the other would provide a Busway/BRT facility along the same corridor. The LRT Alternative would run from downtown Minneapolis, through the University of Minnesota, thence on University Avenue to downtown St. Paul. The LRT would be accessed via one station in downtown Minneapolis, four stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and five stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The Busway/BRT Alternative would follow the same route as the LRT Alternative. The bus facility would be accessed via four stations in downtown Minneapolis, five stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and six stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The LRT Alternative has been selected as the locally preferred alternative. The draft EIS included capital costs for the LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives; the costs were estimated at $840 million and $241 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Annual 2020 operating costs for the Baseline, LRT, and Busway/BRT alternatives were estimated at $90. million, $97.2 million, and $94.0 million, respectively. This supplement to the draft EIS updates the earlier document by outlining modifications to the preferred since April 2006. This is done by presenting modifications as key project elements, as follows: 1) an engineering modification to optimize the connection for the Central Corridor LRT to the existing Hiawatha LRT in downtown Minneapolis; 2) an at-grade LRT alignment on Washington Avenue running from the Washington Avenue Bridge to Oak Street; 3) three future infill stations at Hamline, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; 4) engineering modifications to the alignment along University Street adjacent to the Capitol Area; 5) two alignment alternatives that would extend the alignment previously proposed beyond the St. Paul Union Depot Headhouse; 6) an outline of the characteristic of three-car train operation; 7) the number and general location of substations required and the location of the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in downtown St. Paul; and 8) modifications to the Washington Avenue Bridge to accommodate operation of the LRT on the existing structure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing connecting the downtown areas and providing access from all major points in between, the LRT or Busway/BRT facility would promote economic opportunity and investment in the metropolitan area, enhance community cohesion and connectivity and the residential and commercial environments, and improve transportation and mobility regionally. The emission of transportation-related air pollutants within the study area would decline somewhat under either action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, Construction activities would result in degradation of groundwater resources in the short-term due to dewatering. Noise generated during systems operation would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 12 sensitive receptor sites under the LRT Alternative and 113 such sites under the Busway/BRT Alternative. Construction workers would encounter seven hazardous waste sites under the Busway/BRT alternative and 10 such sites under the LRT Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0410D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080268, Supplemental Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, July 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). [Part 4 of 7] T2 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). AN - 36386443; 13501-080268_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a light rail transit (LRT) facility or a busway/bus rapid transit (BRT) facility within the Central Corridor, extending 11 miles between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota is proposed. The Central Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and connects some of the largest traffic generators in the cities. In addition, the neighborhoods located in the study area are some of the most cohesive in the metropolitan area. Since 1981, the Central Corridor has been a priority focus for bus transit services and capital transportation investment. Three alternatives, including a No Action/Baseline Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of April 2006. The Baseline Alternative would provide for already planned improvements, including the creation of a new route, extension of other routes, and frequency improvements on many of the remaining routes. One action alternative would provide an LRT facility along University Avenue, while the other would provide a Busway/BRT facility along the same corridor. The LRT Alternative would run from downtown Minneapolis, through the University of Minnesota, thence on University Avenue to downtown St. Paul. The LRT would be accessed via one station in downtown Minneapolis, four stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and five stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The Busway/BRT Alternative would follow the same route as the LRT Alternative. The bus facility would be accessed via four stations in downtown Minneapolis, five stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and six stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The LRT Alternative has been selected as the locally preferred alternative. The draft EIS included capital costs for the LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives; the costs were estimated at $840 million and $241 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Annual 2020 operating costs for the Baseline, LRT, and Busway/BRT alternatives were estimated at $90. million, $97.2 million, and $94.0 million, respectively. This supplement to the draft EIS updates the earlier document by outlining modifications to the preferred since April 2006. This is done by presenting modifications as key project elements, as follows: 1) an engineering modification to optimize the connection for the Central Corridor LRT to the existing Hiawatha LRT in downtown Minneapolis; 2) an at-grade LRT alignment on Washington Avenue running from the Washington Avenue Bridge to Oak Street; 3) three future infill stations at Hamline, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; 4) engineering modifications to the alignment along University Street adjacent to the Capitol Area; 5) two alignment alternatives that would extend the alignment previously proposed beyond the St. Paul Union Depot Headhouse; 6) an outline of the characteristic of three-car train operation; 7) the number and general location of substations required and the location of the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in downtown St. Paul; and 8) modifications to the Washington Avenue Bridge to accommodate operation of the LRT on the existing structure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing connecting the downtown areas and providing access from all major points in between, the LRT or Busway/BRT facility would promote economic opportunity and investment in the metropolitan area, enhance community cohesion and connectivity and the residential and commercial environments, and improve transportation and mobility regionally. The emission of transportation-related air pollutants within the study area would decline somewhat under either action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, Construction activities would result in degradation of groundwater resources in the short-term due to dewatering. Noise generated during systems operation would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 12 sensitive receptor sites under the LRT Alternative and 113 such sites under the Busway/BRT Alternative. Construction workers would encounter seven hazardous waste sites under the Busway/BRT alternative and 10 such sites under the LRT Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0410D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080268, Supplemental Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, July 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). [Part 5 of 7] T2 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). AN - 36384300; 13501-080268_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a light rail transit (LRT) facility or a busway/bus rapid transit (BRT) facility within the Central Corridor, extending 11 miles between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota is proposed. The Central Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and connects some of the largest traffic generators in the cities. In addition, the neighborhoods located in the study area are some of the most cohesive in the metropolitan area. Since 1981, the Central Corridor has been a priority focus for bus transit services and capital transportation investment. Three alternatives, including a No Action/Baseline Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of April 2006. The Baseline Alternative would provide for already planned improvements, including the creation of a new route, extension of other routes, and frequency improvements on many of the remaining routes. One action alternative would provide an LRT facility along University Avenue, while the other would provide a Busway/BRT facility along the same corridor. The LRT Alternative would run from downtown Minneapolis, through the University of Minnesota, thence on University Avenue to downtown St. Paul. The LRT would be accessed via one station in downtown Minneapolis, four stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and five stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The Busway/BRT Alternative would follow the same route as the LRT Alternative. The bus facility would be accessed via four stations in downtown Minneapolis, five stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and six stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The LRT Alternative has been selected as the locally preferred alternative. The draft EIS included capital costs for the LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives; the costs were estimated at $840 million and $241 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Annual 2020 operating costs for the Baseline, LRT, and Busway/BRT alternatives were estimated at $90. million, $97.2 million, and $94.0 million, respectively. This supplement to the draft EIS updates the earlier document by outlining modifications to the preferred since April 2006. This is done by presenting modifications as key project elements, as follows: 1) an engineering modification to optimize the connection for the Central Corridor LRT to the existing Hiawatha LRT in downtown Minneapolis; 2) an at-grade LRT alignment on Washington Avenue running from the Washington Avenue Bridge to Oak Street; 3) three future infill stations at Hamline, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; 4) engineering modifications to the alignment along University Street adjacent to the Capitol Area; 5) two alignment alternatives that would extend the alignment previously proposed beyond the St. Paul Union Depot Headhouse; 6) an outline of the characteristic of three-car train operation; 7) the number and general location of substations required and the location of the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in downtown St. Paul; and 8) modifications to the Washington Avenue Bridge to accommodate operation of the LRT on the existing structure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing connecting the downtown areas and providing access from all major points in between, the LRT or Busway/BRT facility would promote economic opportunity and investment in the metropolitan area, enhance community cohesion and connectivity and the residential and commercial environments, and improve transportation and mobility regionally. The emission of transportation-related air pollutants within the study area would decline somewhat under either action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, Construction activities would result in degradation of groundwater resources in the short-term due to dewatering. Noise generated during systems operation would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 12 sensitive receptor sites under the LRT Alternative and 113 such sites under the Busway/BRT Alternative. Construction workers would encounter seven hazardous waste sites under the Busway/BRT alternative and 10 such sites under the LRT Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0410D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080268, Supplemental Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, July 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). [Part 1 of 7] T2 - CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS AND DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2006). AN - 36381181; 13501-080268_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a light rail transit (LRT) facility or a busway/bus rapid transit (BRT) facility within the Central Corridor, extending 11 miles between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota is proposed. The Central Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and connects some of the largest traffic generators in the cities. In addition, the neighborhoods located in the study area are some of the most cohesive in the metropolitan area. Since 1981, the Central Corridor has been a priority focus for bus transit services and capital transportation investment. Three alternatives, including a No Action/Baseline Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of April 2006. The Baseline Alternative would provide for already planned improvements, including the creation of a new route, extension of other routes, and frequency improvements on many of the remaining routes. One action alternative would provide an LRT facility along University Avenue, while the other would provide a Busway/BRT facility along the same corridor. The LRT Alternative would run from downtown Minneapolis, through the University of Minnesota, thence on University Avenue to downtown St. Paul. The LRT would be accessed via one station in downtown Minneapolis, four stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and five stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The Busway/BRT Alternative would follow the same route as the LRT Alternative. The bus facility would be accessed via four stations in downtown Minneapolis, five stations within the university and Prospect Park, seven stations along University Avenue, and six stations within the State Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. The LRT Alternative has been selected as the locally preferred alternative. The draft EIS included capital costs for the LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives; the costs were estimated at $840 million and $241 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars. Annual 2020 operating costs for the Baseline, LRT, and Busway/BRT alternatives were estimated at $90. million, $97.2 million, and $94.0 million, respectively. This supplement to the draft EIS updates the earlier document by outlining modifications to the preferred since April 2006. This is done by presenting modifications as key project elements, as follows: 1) an engineering modification to optimize the connection for the Central Corridor LRT to the existing Hiawatha LRT in downtown Minneapolis; 2) an at-grade LRT alignment on Washington Avenue running from the Washington Avenue Bridge to Oak Street; 3) three future infill stations at Hamline, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; 4) engineering modifications to the alignment along University Street adjacent to the Capitol Area; 5) two alignment alternatives that would extend the alignment previously proposed beyond the St. Paul Union Depot Headhouse; 6) an outline of the characteristic of three-car train operation; 7) the number and general location of substations required and the location of the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in downtown St. Paul; and 8) modifications to the Washington Avenue Bridge to accommodate operation of the LRT on the existing structure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing connecting the downtown areas and providing access from all major points in between, the LRT or Busway/BRT facility would promote economic opportunity and investment in the metropolitan area, enhance community cohesion and connectivity and the residential and commercial environments, and improve transportation and mobility regionally. The emission of transportation-related air pollutants within the study area would decline somewhat under either action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The LRT and Busway/BRT alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, Construction activities would result in degradation of groundwater resources in the short-term due to dewatering. Noise generated during systems operation would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 12 sensitive receptor sites under the LRT Alternative and 113 such sites under the Busway/BRT Alternative. Construction workers would encounter seven hazardous waste sites under the Busway/BRT alternative and 10 such sites under the LRT Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0410D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080268, Supplemental Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, July 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+BETWEEN+DOWNTOWN+MINNEAPOLIS+AND+DOWNTOWN+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A New Approach to Finance Metropolitan Transportation and Ensure System Performance AN - 59820905; 200827831 AB - This article presents a new approach to ensure the performance of highway systems in metropolitan areas while providing a new funding source that will allow a reduction or elimination of existing taxes dedicated for transportation use. The approach involves conversion of existing freeways in metropolitan areas into premium-service free-flowing highways that provide fast, frequent, and inexpensive express bus service, while charging all private vehicles a variable toll, except for authorized buses and certified vanpool vehicles. The article provides estimates of the potential economic and financial impacts from such an approach applied in the five most congested U.S. metropolitan areas. The estimates suggest that the concept could provide sufficient revenue to replace the fuel tax and perhaps other transportation taxes, while providing huge reductions in congestion delay and fuel consumption. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2008.] JF - Public Works Management & Policy AU - Decorla-Souza, Patrick AD - Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC patrick.decorla-souza@dot.gov Y1 - 2008/07// PY - 2008 DA - July 2008 SP - 75 EP - 84 PB - Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA VL - 13 IS - 1 SN - 1087-724X, 1087-724X KW - congestion pricing KW - transportation financing KW - freeway operations KW - travel demand management KW - active traffic management KW - Management KW - Transportation KW - Finance KW - Prices KW - Supply and Demand KW - article KW - 9263: public policy/administration; public administration/bureaucracy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59820905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awpsa&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Public+Works+Management+%26+Policy&rft.atitle=A+New+Approach+to+Finance+Metropolitan+Transportation+and+Ensure+System+Performance&rft.au=Decorla-Souza%2C+Patrick&rft.aulast=Decorla-Souza&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft.date=2008-07-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=75&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Public+Works+Management+%26+Policy&rft.issn=1087724X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177%2F1087724X08321167 LA - English DB - Worldwide Political Science Abstracts N1 - Date revised - 2008-10-02 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Transportation; Prices; Finance; Supply and Demand; Management DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087724X08321167 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Steady heat release rate by the moment-area method AN - 21217180; 11136748 AB - A simple mathematical procedure is described for computing temporal averages of heat release rate (HRR) data from the moments and area of the history. The moment-area method was used to calculate average HRRs for over 200 specimens having a wide range of chemical composition and sample thickness tested on a bench-scale fire calorimeter at various external heat fluxes. The average values of HRR obtained by the moment-area method are essentially independent of sample thickness and are potentially useful for ranking material flammability and determining material combustion properties. Published in 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. JF - Fire and Materials AU - Lyon, Richard E AU - Crowley, Sean AU - Walters, Richard N AD - Airport and Aircraft Safety R&D Division, Federal Aviation Administration, William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405, U.S.A., Richard.E.Lyon@faa.gov Y1 - 2008/07// PY - 2008 DA - Jul 2008 SP - 199 EP - 212 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 USA VL - 32 IS - 4 SN - 0308-0501, 0308-0501 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Historical account KW - Fires KW - Chemical composition KW - Combustion KW - Heat transfer KW - Flammability KW - H 7000:Fire Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21217180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Fire+and+Materials&rft.atitle=Steady+heat+release+rate+by+the+moment-area+method&rft.au=Lyon%2C+Richard+E%3BCrowley%2C+Sean%3BWalters%2C+Richard+N&rft.aulast=Lyon&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2008-07-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=199&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Fire+and+Materials&rft.issn=03080501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Ffam.957 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Heat transfer; Fires; Combustion; Historical account; Flammability; Chemical composition DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fam.957 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 868223106; 13528-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this draft EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080258, 546 pages, CD-ROM, June 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 868223097; 13528-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this draft EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080258, 546 pages, CD-ROM, June 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS, PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS, MODEL YEARS 2001 TO 2015. AN - 868223090; 13528-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is proposed for motor vehicle model years 2011 through 2015. The standards would be designed to gradually allow the enforcement of CAFE standards requiring that passenger cars and light trucks consume no more than one gallon per 35 miles traveled by model year 2020. This draft EIS covers the initial five-year rulemaking as well as cumulative impacts of reaching the 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) standard during the next five year period, model year 2015 through 2020. In addition to the preferred CAFE standard of 35.7 mpg for passenger vehicles and 28.6 mpg for trucks, this draft EIS considers three other standards and a No Action Alternative, which would retain the existing CAFE car and truck standards of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg, respectively. The main focus of this draft EIS is on the quantification of impacts to energy resource reserves, air quality, and climate, as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from climate change. Other resource impacts address include those related to water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The standards would respond to scientific findings that indicate that carbon dioxide and ozone emitted by motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect, which would result in dangerous increases in atmospheric temperature and sea levels. These impacts would result in excessive precipitation and flooding in some areas, drought in other areas, flooding in most coastal areas due to increases in sea level, increases in seawater temperatures such that fish and other marine species could be affected. Vehicle emissions causing health problems and otherwise degrading the environment per vehicle mile traveled would be reduced. Increased fuel efficiency would also reduce the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil. The standards would reduce domestic oil production requirements, reducing the associated impacts to lands and waters of the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The standards would promote the use of biofuels, the production of which would result in diversion of farmland from food crop production, increase in certain food crop prices due to the diversion of large proportions of those crops for use as biofuel feedstock, and displacement of natural land for agricultural uses to increase biofuel feedstock production. Downweighting of vehicles to meet standards could reduce passenger safety, as could increased vehicle miles traveled, which would also increase the extent and duration of ambient noise emissions and increase traffic congestion. Global surface temperature reductions effected by the proposed standards would be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975. JF - EPA number: 080258, 546 pages, CD-ROM, June 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Coastal Zones KW - Emission Standards KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Marine Systems KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Standards KW - Weather KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1975, Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.title=CORPORATE+AVERAGE+FUEL+ECONOMY+STANDARDS%2C+PASSENGER+CARS+AND+LIGHT+TRUCKS%2C+MODEL+YEARS+2001+TO+2015.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Commission, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 868223174; 13527-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to suborbital launch commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources,, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative And the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. JF - EPA number: 080257, 584 pages, June 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Spacecraft KW - Sonic Booms KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 868223160; 13527-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to suborbital launch commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources,, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative And the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. JF - EPA number: 080257, 584 pages, June 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Spacecraft KW - Sonic Booms KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 868223147; 13527-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to suborbital launch commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources,, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative And the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. JF - EPA number: 080257, 584 pages, June 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Spacecraft KW - Sonic Booms KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36342470; 13527 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to suborbital launch commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources,, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative And the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. JF - EPA number: 080257, 584 pages, June 25, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Spacecraft KW - Sonic Booms KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Comparing Mobile6.2 and Emfac2007 Emission Factors T2 - 101st Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association AN - 41043296; 4907914 JF - 101st Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association AU - Claggett, M AU - Houk, J Y1 - 2008/06/24/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Jun 24 KW - Emissions KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41043296?accountid=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=101st+Annual+Conference+and+Exhibition+of+the+Air+and+Waste+Management+Association&rft.atitle=Comparing+Mobile6.2+and+Emfac2007+Emission+Factors&rft.au=Claggett%2C+M%3BHouk%2C+J&rft.aulast=Claggett&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=101st+Annual+Conference+and+Exhibition+of+the+Air+and+Waste+Management+Association&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.abstractonline.com/viewer/browseOptions.asp?MKey={EDF17668- D85D-4ADF-BB4B-795DC0621B8B}&AKey={B2B3355E-B6DC-4154-ABE7-63E874668 9A8} LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-02-25 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: The Gulf Coast Study T2 - 101st Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association AN - 41034865; 4907669 JF - 101st Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association AU - Savonis, M Y1 - 2008/06/24/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Jun 24 KW - Climatic changes KW - Coastal zone KW - Adaptability KW - Adaptations KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41034865?accountid=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=101st+Annual+Conference+and+Exhibition+of+the+Air+and+Waste+Management+Association&rft.atitle=Climate+Change+Impacts+and+Adaptation%3A+The+Gulf+Coast+Study&rft.au=Savonis%2C+M&rft.aulast=Savonis&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=101st+Annual+Conference+and+Exhibition+of+the+Air+and+Waste+Management+Association&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.abstractonline.com/viewer/browseOptions.asp?MKey={EDF17668- D85D-4ADF-BB4B-795DC0621B8B}&AKey={B2B3355E-B6DC-4154-ABE7-63E874668 9A8} LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-02-25 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36393533; 13488-080250_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Orangethorpe railroad corridor via the provision of grade-separated crossings for several major intersecting roadways along five miles of the corridor through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim and unincorporated Orange County, California is proposed. The corridor, which a section of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line located in northeastern Orange County, extends from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial Highway (State Route 90). Currently, the corridor suffers from traffic congestion and substandard safety conditions for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians at major roadway crossings of the railroad tracks. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include two railroad lowering alternatives and one standard above-ground grade separation alternative. Alternative B would lower the railroad along the entire Orangethorpe corridor. This alternative would provide for a railroad trench that would begin its descent at Bradford Avenue. proceed east at the maximum grade of one percent to a full trench depth of 40 feet near Kraemer Boulevard, maintain a 40-foot depth as it continued eastward to just west of Kellogg Drive, where it would begin its ascent at a one percent grade to join the existing at-grade rail line at Imperial Highway. Alternative C would lower the railroad tracks from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Kellogg Drive, combining a partial trench with standard grade separations to accommodate an emergency bypass route for the railroad utilizing the existing tracks. Alternative D would implement a standard grade-separation design, providing two railroad underpasses and six railroad overpasses between Kraemer Boulevard and Kellogg Drive, both of which would pass under the railroad corridor. Overpass structures would be provided at the intersections of the rail corridor and Orangethorpe Avenue, Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Jefferson Street, Van Buren Street, Richfield Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Costs of alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $560 million, $488 million, and $324 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving traffic conditions along the corridor, a serious threat to the safe movement of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be eliminated. Lowering of the rail line would decrease the level of noise emitted by passing trains in an area that includes schools. All build alternatives would improve the viewshed in the area adjacent to the corridor. Flood conditions along the corridor would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of five to 32 residential and 11 to 43 nonresidential parcels as well as the partial displacement of 34 to 61 parcels. Property acquisitions would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Adverse hydrological patterns would arise from any build alternative. Though some beneficial flood control effects would result from each build alternative, all alternatives would result in an initial reduction in flood control capacity. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Rail operation noise would exceed federal standards for some sensitive receptor sites along the corridor, and vibration impacts would also be experienced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080250, Volume I--279 pages and maps, Volume II--344 pages and maps, June 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-EIS-CA21 KW - Environmental Justice KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydrology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36391976; 13488-080250_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Orangethorpe railroad corridor via the provision of grade-separated crossings for several major intersecting roadways along five miles of the corridor through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim and unincorporated Orange County, California is proposed. The corridor, which a section of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line located in northeastern Orange County, extends from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial Highway (State Route 90). Currently, the corridor suffers from traffic congestion and substandard safety conditions for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians at major roadway crossings of the railroad tracks. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include two railroad lowering alternatives and one standard above-ground grade separation alternative. Alternative B would lower the railroad along the entire Orangethorpe corridor. This alternative would provide for a railroad trench that would begin its descent at Bradford Avenue. proceed east at the maximum grade of one percent to a full trench depth of 40 feet near Kraemer Boulevard, maintain a 40-foot depth as it continued eastward to just west of Kellogg Drive, where it would begin its ascent at a one percent grade to join the existing at-grade rail line at Imperial Highway. Alternative C would lower the railroad tracks from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Kellogg Drive, combining a partial trench with standard grade separations to accommodate an emergency bypass route for the railroad utilizing the existing tracks. Alternative D would implement a standard grade-separation design, providing two railroad underpasses and six railroad overpasses between Kraemer Boulevard and Kellogg Drive, both of which would pass under the railroad corridor. Overpass structures would be provided at the intersections of the rail corridor and Orangethorpe Avenue, Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Jefferson Street, Van Buren Street, Richfield Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Costs of alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $560 million, $488 million, and $324 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving traffic conditions along the corridor, a serious threat to the safe movement of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be eliminated. Lowering of the rail line would decrease the level of noise emitted by passing trains in an area that includes schools. All build alternatives would improve the viewshed in the area adjacent to the corridor. Flood conditions along the corridor would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of five to 32 residential and 11 to 43 nonresidential parcels as well as the partial displacement of 34 to 61 parcels. Property acquisitions would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Adverse hydrological patterns would arise from any build alternative. Though some beneficial flood control effects would result from each build alternative, all alternatives would result in an initial reduction in flood control capacity. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Rail operation noise would exceed federal standards for some sensitive receptor sites along the corridor, and vibration impacts would also be experienced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080250, Volume I--279 pages and maps, Volume II--344 pages and maps, June 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-EIS-CA21 KW - Environmental Justice KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydrology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36386618; 13488-080250_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Orangethorpe railroad corridor via the provision of grade-separated crossings for several major intersecting roadways along five miles of the corridor through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim and unincorporated Orange County, California is proposed. The corridor, which a section of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line located in northeastern Orange County, extends from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial Highway (State Route 90). Currently, the corridor suffers from traffic congestion and substandard safety conditions for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians at major roadway crossings of the railroad tracks. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include two railroad lowering alternatives and one standard above-ground grade separation alternative. Alternative B would lower the railroad along the entire Orangethorpe corridor. This alternative would provide for a railroad trench that would begin its descent at Bradford Avenue. proceed east at the maximum grade of one percent to a full trench depth of 40 feet near Kraemer Boulevard, maintain a 40-foot depth as it continued eastward to just west of Kellogg Drive, where it would begin its ascent at a one percent grade to join the existing at-grade rail line at Imperial Highway. Alternative C would lower the railroad tracks from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Kellogg Drive, combining a partial trench with standard grade separations to accommodate an emergency bypass route for the railroad utilizing the existing tracks. Alternative D would implement a standard grade-separation design, providing two railroad underpasses and six railroad overpasses between Kraemer Boulevard and Kellogg Drive, both of which would pass under the railroad corridor. Overpass structures would be provided at the intersections of the rail corridor and Orangethorpe Avenue, Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Jefferson Street, Van Buren Street, Richfield Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Costs of alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $560 million, $488 million, and $324 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving traffic conditions along the corridor, a serious threat to the safe movement of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be eliminated. Lowering of the rail line would decrease the level of noise emitted by passing trains in an area that includes schools. All build alternatives would improve the viewshed in the area adjacent to the corridor. Flood conditions along the corridor would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of five to 32 residential and 11 to 43 nonresidential parcels as well as the partial displacement of 34 to 61 parcels. Property acquisitions would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Adverse hydrological patterns would arise from any build alternative. Though some beneficial flood control effects would result from each build alternative, all alternatives would result in an initial reduction in flood control capacity. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Rail operation noise would exceed federal standards for some sensitive receptor sites along the corridor, and vibration impacts would also be experienced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080250, Volume I--279 pages and maps, Volume II--344 pages and maps, June 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-EIS-CA21 KW - Environmental Justice KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydrology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36386504; 13488-080250_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Orangethorpe railroad corridor via the provision of grade-separated crossings for several major intersecting roadways along five miles of the corridor through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim and unincorporated Orange County, California is proposed. The corridor, which a section of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line located in northeastern Orange County, extends from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial Highway (State Route 90). Currently, the corridor suffers from traffic congestion and substandard safety conditions for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians at major roadway crossings of the railroad tracks. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include two railroad lowering alternatives and one standard above-ground grade separation alternative. Alternative B would lower the railroad along the entire Orangethorpe corridor. This alternative would provide for a railroad trench that would begin its descent at Bradford Avenue. proceed east at the maximum grade of one percent to a full trench depth of 40 feet near Kraemer Boulevard, maintain a 40-foot depth as it continued eastward to just west of Kellogg Drive, where it would begin its ascent at a one percent grade to join the existing at-grade rail line at Imperial Highway. Alternative C would lower the railroad tracks from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Kellogg Drive, combining a partial trench with standard grade separations to accommodate an emergency bypass route for the railroad utilizing the existing tracks. Alternative D would implement a standard grade-separation design, providing two railroad underpasses and six railroad overpasses between Kraemer Boulevard and Kellogg Drive, both of which would pass under the railroad corridor. Overpass structures would be provided at the intersections of the rail corridor and Orangethorpe Avenue, Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Jefferson Street, Van Buren Street, Richfield Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Costs of alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $560 million, $488 million, and $324 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving traffic conditions along the corridor, a serious threat to the safe movement of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be eliminated. Lowering of the rail line would decrease the level of noise emitted by passing trains in an area that includes schools. All build alternatives would improve the viewshed in the area adjacent to the corridor. Flood conditions along the corridor would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of five to 32 residential and 11 to 43 nonresidential parcels as well as the partial displacement of 34 to 61 parcels. Property acquisitions would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Adverse hydrological patterns would arise from any build alternative. Though some beneficial flood control effects would result from each build alternative, all alternatives would result in an initial reduction in flood control capacity. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Rail operation noise would exceed federal standards for some sensitive receptor sites along the corridor, and vibration impacts would also be experienced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080250, Volume I--279 pages and maps, Volume II--344 pages and maps, June 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-EIS-CA21 KW - Environmental Justice KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydrology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36384367; 13488-080250_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Orangethorpe railroad corridor via the provision of grade-separated crossings for several major intersecting roadways along five miles of the corridor through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim and unincorporated Orange County, California is proposed. The corridor, which a section of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line located in northeastern Orange County, extends from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial Highway (State Route 90). Currently, the corridor suffers from traffic congestion and substandard safety conditions for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians at major roadway crossings of the railroad tracks. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include two railroad lowering alternatives and one standard above-ground grade separation alternative. Alternative B would lower the railroad along the entire Orangethorpe corridor. This alternative would provide for a railroad trench that would begin its descent at Bradford Avenue. proceed east at the maximum grade of one percent to a full trench depth of 40 feet near Kraemer Boulevard, maintain a 40-foot depth as it continued eastward to just west of Kellogg Drive, where it would begin its ascent at a one percent grade to join the existing at-grade rail line at Imperial Highway. Alternative C would lower the railroad tracks from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Kellogg Drive, combining a partial trench with standard grade separations to accommodate an emergency bypass route for the railroad utilizing the existing tracks. Alternative D would implement a standard grade-separation design, providing two railroad underpasses and six railroad overpasses between Kraemer Boulevard and Kellogg Drive, both of which would pass under the railroad corridor. Overpass structures would be provided at the intersections of the rail corridor and Orangethorpe Avenue, Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Jefferson Street, Van Buren Street, Richfield Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Costs of alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $560 million, $488 million, and $324 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving traffic conditions along the corridor, a serious threat to the safe movement of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be eliminated. Lowering of the rail line would decrease the level of noise emitted by passing trains in an area that includes schools. All build alternatives would improve the viewshed in the area adjacent to the corridor. Flood conditions along the corridor would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of five to 32 residential and 11 to 43 nonresidential parcels as well as the partial displacement of 34 to 61 parcels. Property acquisitions would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Adverse hydrological patterns would arise from any build alternative. Though some beneficial flood control effects would result from each build alternative, all alternatives would result in an initial reduction in flood control capacity. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Rail operation noise would exceed federal standards for some sensitive receptor sites along the corridor, and vibration impacts would also be experienced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080250, Volume I--279 pages and maps, Volume II--344 pages and maps, June 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-EIS-CA21 KW - Environmental Justice KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydrology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36383367; 13488-080250_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Orangethorpe railroad corridor via the provision of grade-separated crossings for several major intersecting roadways along five miles of the corridor through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim and unincorporated Orange County, California is proposed. The corridor, which a section of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line located in northeastern Orange County, extends from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial Highway (State Route 90). Currently, the corridor suffers from traffic congestion and substandard safety conditions for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians at major roadway crossings of the railroad tracks. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include two railroad lowering alternatives and one standard above-ground grade separation alternative. Alternative B would lower the railroad along the entire Orangethorpe corridor. This alternative would provide for a railroad trench that would begin its descent at Bradford Avenue. proceed east at the maximum grade of one percent to a full trench depth of 40 feet near Kraemer Boulevard, maintain a 40-foot depth as it continued eastward to just west of Kellogg Drive, where it would begin its ascent at a one percent grade to join the existing at-grade rail line at Imperial Highway. Alternative C would lower the railroad tracks from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Kellogg Drive, combining a partial trench with standard grade separations to accommodate an emergency bypass route for the railroad utilizing the existing tracks. Alternative D would implement a standard grade-separation design, providing two railroad underpasses and six railroad overpasses between Kraemer Boulevard and Kellogg Drive, both of which would pass under the railroad corridor. Overpass structures would be provided at the intersections of the rail corridor and Orangethorpe Avenue, Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Jefferson Street, Van Buren Street, Richfield Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Costs of alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $560 million, $488 million, and $324 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving traffic conditions along the corridor, a serious threat to the safe movement of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be eliminated. Lowering of the rail line would decrease the level of noise emitted by passing trains in an area that includes schools. All build alternatives would improve the viewshed in the area adjacent to the corridor. Flood conditions along the corridor would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of five to 32 residential and 11 to 43 nonresidential parcels as well as the partial displacement of 34 to 61 parcels. Property acquisitions would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Adverse hydrological patterns would arise from any build alternative. Though some beneficial flood control effects would result from each build alternative, all alternatives would result in an initial reduction in flood control capacity. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Rail operation noise would exceed federal standards for some sensitive receptor sites along the corridor, and vibration impacts would also be experienced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080250, Volume I--279 pages and maps, Volume II--344 pages and maps, June 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-EIS-CA21 KW - Environmental Justice KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydrology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381113; 13488-080250_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Orangethorpe railroad corridor via the provision of grade-separated crossings for several major intersecting roadways along five miles of the corridor through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim and unincorporated Orange County, California is proposed. The corridor, which a section of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line located in northeastern Orange County, extends from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial Highway (State Route 90). Currently, the corridor suffers from traffic congestion and substandard safety conditions for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians at major roadway crossings of the railroad tracks. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include two railroad lowering alternatives and one standard above-ground grade separation alternative. Alternative B would lower the railroad along the entire Orangethorpe corridor. This alternative would provide for a railroad trench that would begin its descent at Bradford Avenue. proceed east at the maximum grade of one percent to a full trench depth of 40 feet near Kraemer Boulevard, maintain a 40-foot depth as it continued eastward to just west of Kellogg Drive, where it would begin its ascent at a one percent grade to join the existing at-grade rail line at Imperial Highway. Alternative C would lower the railroad tracks from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Kellogg Drive, combining a partial trench with standard grade separations to accommodate an emergency bypass route for the railroad utilizing the existing tracks. Alternative D would implement a standard grade-separation design, providing two railroad underpasses and six railroad overpasses between Kraemer Boulevard and Kellogg Drive, both of which would pass under the railroad corridor. Overpass structures would be provided at the intersections of the rail corridor and Orangethorpe Avenue, Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Jefferson Street, Van Buren Street, Richfield Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Costs of alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $560 million, $488 million, and $324 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving traffic conditions along the corridor, a serious threat to the safe movement of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be eliminated. Lowering of the rail line would decrease the level of noise emitted by passing trains in an area that includes schools. All build alternatives would improve the viewshed in the area adjacent to the corridor. Flood conditions along the corridor would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of five to 32 residential and 11 to 43 nonresidential parcels as well as the partial displacement of 34 to 61 parcels. Property acquisitions would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Adverse hydrological patterns would arise from any build alternative. Though some beneficial flood control effects would result from each build alternative, all alternatives would result in an initial reduction in flood control capacity. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Rail operation noise would exceed federal standards for some sensitive receptor sites along the corridor, and vibration impacts would also be experienced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080250, Volume I--279 pages and maps, Volume II--344 pages and maps, June 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-EIS-CA21 KW - Environmental Justice KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydrology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16381563; 13488 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Orangethorpe railroad corridor via the provision of grade-separated crossings for several major intersecting roadways along five miles of the corridor through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim and unincorporated Orange County, California is proposed. The corridor, which a section of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line located in northeastern Orange County, extends from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial Highway (State Route 90). Currently, the corridor suffers from traffic congestion and substandard safety conditions for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians at major roadway crossings of the railroad tracks. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include two railroad lowering alternatives and one standard above-ground grade separation alternative. Alternative B would lower the railroad along the entire Orangethorpe corridor. This alternative would provide for a railroad trench that would begin its descent at Bradford Avenue. proceed east at the maximum grade of one percent to a full trench depth of 40 feet near Kraemer Boulevard, maintain a 40-foot depth as it continued eastward to just west of Kellogg Drive, where it would begin its ascent at a one percent grade to join the existing at-grade rail line at Imperial Highway. Alternative C would lower the railroad tracks from west of Bradford Avenue to west of Kellogg Drive, combining a partial trench with standard grade separations to accommodate an emergency bypass route for the railroad utilizing the existing tracks. Alternative D would implement a standard grade-separation design, providing two railroad underpasses and six railroad overpasses between Kraemer Boulevard and Kellogg Drive, both of which would pass under the railroad corridor. Overpass structures would be provided at the intersections of the rail corridor and Orangethorpe Avenue, Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Jefferson Street, Van Buren Street, Richfield Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Costs of alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $560 million, $488 million, and $324 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving traffic conditions along the corridor, a serious threat to the safe movement of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be eliminated. Lowering of the rail line would decrease the level of noise emitted by passing trains in an area that includes schools. All build alternatives would improve the viewshed in the area adjacent to the corridor. Flood conditions along the corridor would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of five to 32 residential and 11 to 43 nonresidential parcels as well as the partial displacement of 34 to 61 parcels. Property acquisitions would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Adverse hydrological patterns would arise from any build alternative. Though some beneficial flood control effects would result from each build alternative, all alternatives would result in an initial reduction in flood control capacity. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Rail operation noise would exceed federal standards for some sensitive receptor sites along the corridor, and vibration impacts would also be experienced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080250, Volume I--279 pages and maps, Volume II--344 pages and maps, June 20, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-EIS-CA21 KW - Environmental Justice KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydrology KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ORANGE+COUNTY+GATEWAY+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36413233; 13482 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 24 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36400493; 13482-080244_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 9 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36399559; 13483-080245_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36399559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080244/080244_0010.txt of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36398820; 13482-080244_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080244/080244_0010.txt KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36398820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 9 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36398604; 13482-080244_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36398604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36398403; 13482-080244_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36398403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 28 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36393955; 13482-080244_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 28 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 21 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36393738; 13482-080244_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 17 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36393538; 13482-080244_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080245/080245_0010.txt of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36393250; 13483-080245_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080245/080245_0010.txt KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36393114; 13483-080245_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 26 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36392829; 13482-080244_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392829?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36392739; 13482-080244_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 22 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36392562; 13482-080244_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36392287; 13483-080245_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36391778; 13482-080244_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391778?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36391031; 13482-080244_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 16 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36390783; 13482-080244_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36390681; 13483-080245_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36390649; 13483-080245_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36390526; 13483-080245_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080244/080244_0020.txt of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36390459; 13482-080244_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080244/080244_0020.txt KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 16 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36390431; 13483-080245_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36390342; 13483-080245_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 17 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36390264; 13483-080245_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36390103; 13482-080244_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 27 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36386462; 13482-080244_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 18 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36386198; 13482-080244_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 13 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36385764; 13482-080244_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36385615; 13482-080244_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36385496; 13483-080245_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36385478; 13482-080244_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36385388; 13483-080245_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 25 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36383431; 13482-080244_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 14 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36382494; 13482-080244_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 13 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36382405; 13483-080245_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 12 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36382320; 13483-080245_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 12 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36381914; 13482-080244_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 11 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36381637; 13482-080244_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080244/080244_0030.txt of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36380486; 13482-080244_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080244/080244_0030.txt KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 29 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36380390; 13482-080244_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 29 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 23 of 30] T2 - FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36380205; 13482-080244_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Broward County, Florida is proposed. The facility plays a major role in the economic viability of the region by providing access to tourist destinations and businesses along Florida's southeast coast; the airport, which accommodated 22 million passengers in 2005, is served by more than 45 air carrier, commuter, air cargo, and charter airline companies that provide flights to more than 40 U.S. and international destinations. Currently, airfield capacity does not meet demand, resulting in delays that will become unacceptable as demand rises in the future. Eight on-site alternatives, a number of off-site alternatives, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. With the assistance of federal funding assistance, the airport sponsor would decommission Runway 13/31; widen and extend Runway 9R/27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; elevate the ends of Runway 9R and Runway 27L to provide 34.74 feet of vertical clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway; construct a new full-length parallel taxiway with a width of 75 feet on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with a separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual parallel taxiway to be used as a temporary runway during construction of Runway 9R/27L; construct a connecting taxiway from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing Taxiway E; construct a Category I Instrument Landing System for landings on runways 9R and 27L that includes a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights, localizer, and glideslope. Actions associated with the sponsor's proposal would include closure of the airport perimeter road, now located within the approach to Runway 9R; relations of airport surveillance radar; acquisition of all, or a portion of, the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent of existing structure would lie within the proposed runway protection zone for extended Runway 9R/27L; partial displacement of the Jet Center facilities; and full displacement of the Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities for potential use of a taxiway as a temporary runway during construction. Construction costs are estimated to range from $128.6 million to $738.9 million, while land acquisition costs estimated range from $35.6 million to $465.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed airport expansion and reconfiguration would accommodate the continued growth at the airport, which ranks one of the 35 busiest airports in the U.S. The expansion of capacity and reduction of operational delays would address growth through the planning horizons of 2012 and 2020. By increasing operational efficiency and decreasing delays, the enlarged airport would reduce aircraft pollutant emissions. Demand employment associated with the construction expenditures would range from 9,700 to 22,400 jobs for all industries in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The population and number of residential units located within the 65-decibed contour around the airport would increase, but no noise-sensitive facilities would be affected by noise levels exceeding federal standards. As noted above, all of part of an airport hotel would be displaced. The potential use of dredge material from Port Everglades could require installation of a slurry pipeline through West Lake Park to deliver dredge spoil to the airport, but the affected portion of the park is not accessible to the public. Small portions of wetland would be displaced LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-223), 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: 080244, Volume 1--322 pages and maps, Volume 2--899 pages and maps, Volume 3--821 pages and maps, Volume 4--341 pages and maps, Volume 5--401 pages, Volume 6--798 pages and maps, Volume 7--987 pages, Volume 8--621 pages, Volume 5--836 pages, Volume 10--321 pages, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Airport and Airway Safety Expansion Act of 1987, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 11 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36380124; 13483-080245_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36380046; 13483-080245_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 15 of 17] T2 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36379913; 13483-080245_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-15 CORRIDOR, UTAH COUNTY TO SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 16385609; 13483 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 43 miles of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Utah and Salt Lake counties, Utah is proposed. The project would extend from the South Payson I-15 interchange (Exit 248) in the city of Payson on the south to the 12300 South I-15 interchange (Exit 291) in the city of Draper. Unless the facility's capacity is increased, increasing transportation demand in the corridor will result in severe congestion, particularly during peak hours. By 2030, the level of service on 20 of the mainline sections would indicate a situation of undercapacity. Within the 22 interchanges, peak hour congestion will exceed acceptable levels at one or more of the interchange components (including ramps, ramp termini intersections, and intersections adjacent to ramp termini) at 20 of the 22 interchanges within the study corridor. The existing facility also suffers from substandard roadway features, contributing to both congestion and safety concerns. Analysis of the roadway has indicated that a there are 15 vertical curves and two horizontal curves that are substandard due to inadequate stopping sight distances; two ramps are characterized by inadequate acceleration length; and 13 bridges are in need of repair or replacement. The proposed action would include the widening of I-15, total reconstruction of 15 interchanges, modification of seven interchanges, construction of new interchanges at Orem 800 South and North Lehi, and four different options in the Provo and Orem section of the corridor that could include a four-mile frontage road system. Cross street improvements would be undertaken as necessary to provide for proper tie-ins to the improved highway. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and one action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would address anticipated freeway north-south mobility in the corridor through the year 2030. Expected level of service in the year 2030 would be significantly better than otherwise. Problematic engineering features would be ameliorated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 478 to 544 acres of land, including 1.43 to 30 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 21.7 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 3.54 acres of unique farmland, and 0.25 to 5.34 acres of agricultural protection areas. The project would displace 20 to 117 housing units, 50-84 business units, 43 to 54 acres of wetlands, and three to four recreational and/or historic sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 822 to 843 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0068D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080245, Volume I--422 pages and maps, Volume IA--449 pages, Maps--153 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=I-15+CORRIDOR%2C+UTAH+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36413425; 13472 AB - PURPOSE: The re-establishment of access previously provided by Forest Service Road (FSR) 2610 and Dosewallips Road in the Hood Canal Ranger District, Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park, Jefferson County, Washington is proposed to allow the public to reach to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS) recreational facilities in the area. FSR 2610 is a single-lane road with turnouts, surfaced with aggregate (crushed rock); Dosewallips Road is an extension of FSR 2610 in the Olympic National Park. A storm in January 2002 washed out 310 feet of FSR 2610, and the washout increased to 500 feet as measured in December 2007. The washout cutoff road access to approximately five miles of USFS and NPS roads, which had provided access to Elkhorn Campground in the Olympic National Forest and the Dosewallips Ranger Station in the Olympic National Park. Subsequent storms damaged 120 feet of Dosewallips Road about four miles west of the damage to FSR 2610. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to road management, geotechnical and geomorphic processes, soil productivity, aquatic species and habitat conditions, terrestrial species and habitat, botanical species and habitat, invasive plants, access and recreational uses, wilderness values, socioeconomics, visual quality, climate change soundscapes, and park operations. Originally, the proposed action was to rebuild FSR 2610 through the washout area, including a low-water crossing. Four alternatives, including the original proposal and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All action alternatives would re-establish both FSR 2610 and Dosewallips Road. The currently proposed action would reroute FSR 2610 along the hillslope above and to the north of the washout to restore access for passenger cars, recreational vehicles, and vehicles pulling trailers. Approximately, 0.84 mile of single-lane road with turnouts would be constructed using standard construction methods. Depending on the alternative selected, costs of the project range from $2.55 million to $8.7 million for FRS 2610 re-establishment, while the repair of Dosewallips Road is estimated to cost $350,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Re-establishing the roads would restore motorized access to developed recreation facilities on both the Olympic National Forest and the Olympic National Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and maintenance would result in the disturbance of soils and the destruction of vegetation and the resulting loss of wildlife habitat and increased sediment loadings in receiving flows within the watershed. Use of the road would create in conflicts between wildlife and recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080234, 321 pages, June 9, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Olympic National Forest KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413425?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympic, Washington; DA N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36392945; 13472-080234_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The re-establishment of access previously provided by Forest Service Road (FSR) 2610 and Dosewallips Road in the Hood Canal Ranger District, Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park, Jefferson County, Washington is proposed to allow the public to reach to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS) recreational facilities in the area. FSR 2610 is a single-lane road with turnouts, surfaced with aggregate (crushed rock); Dosewallips Road is an extension of FSR 2610 in the Olympic National Park. A storm in January 2002 washed out 310 feet of FSR 2610, and the washout increased to 500 feet as measured in December 2007. The washout cutoff road access to approximately five miles of USFS and NPS roads, which had provided access to Elkhorn Campground in the Olympic National Forest and the Dosewallips Ranger Station in the Olympic National Park. Subsequent storms damaged 120 feet of Dosewallips Road about four miles west of the damage to FSR 2610. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to road management, geotechnical and geomorphic processes, soil productivity, aquatic species and habitat conditions, terrestrial species and habitat, botanical species and habitat, invasive plants, access and recreational uses, wilderness values, socioeconomics, visual quality, climate change soundscapes, and park operations. Originally, the proposed action was to rebuild FSR 2610 through the washout area, including a low-water crossing. Four alternatives, including the original proposal and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All action alternatives would re-establish both FSR 2610 and Dosewallips Road. The currently proposed action would reroute FSR 2610 along the hillslope above and to the north of the washout to restore access for passenger cars, recreational vehicles, and vehicles pulling trailers. Approximately, 0.84 mile of single-lane road with turnouts would be constructed using standard construction methods. Depending on the alternative selected, costs of the project range from $2.55 million to $8.7 million for FRS 2610 re-establishment, while the repair of Dosewallips Road is estimated to cost $350,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Re-establishing the roads would restore motorized access to developed recreation facilities on both the Olympic National Forest and the Olympic National Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and maintenance would result in the disturbance of soils and the destruction of vegetation and the resulting loss of wildlife habitat and increased sediment loadings in receiving flows within the watershed. Use of the road would create in conflicts between wildlife and recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080234, 321 pages, June 9, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Olympic National Forest KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympic, Washington; DA N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 9, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Antiemetic and sedative levels found together in 26 civil aviation pilot fatalities, 2000-2006. AN - 69257109; 18581945 AB - Antiemetics and sedatives are two drug classes that may have harmful side effects when mixed. This is especially dangerous for pilots. Although many of these compounds are considered disqualifying by the FAA, their use occurs. Some pilots may be unaware of the danger of combining compounds from these two drug classes. Our laboratory was interested in evaluating the circumstances surrounding accidents in which the pilot was found positive for drugs from each of these two classes. Epidemiological, toxicological, and aeromedical findings from pilots involved in such accidents were collected for the 7-yr period from 2000 through 2006. Case histories, accident information, and the probable cause of the aviation accidents were obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Toxicological information was obtained from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute's (CAMI's) Forensic Toxicology Research Laboratory. Of the 2184 fatal aviation accidents over this time period, 26 were found positive for compounds from both the antiemetic and the sedative drug classes. All 26 aircraft were operated under 14 CFR Part 91 as general aviation. All pilots were male; 21 tested positive for a disqualifying substance that may have affected their ability to control the aircraft. Although the percentage of accidents in which the pilot tests positive for a compound from each class is small, it is important for all pilots to understand the dangers of self-medicating and concomitant use of such substances. Under-reporting of medications by pilots during their certification process occurs; education is the key to preventing inadvertent drug-drug interactions. JF - Aviation, space, and environmental medicine AU - Botch, Sabra R AU - Johnson, Robert D AD - Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Federal Aviation Administration, Analytical Toxicology and Accident Research Laboratory, AAM-610, CAMI Building, RM 351, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169-6901, USA. sabra.botch@faa.gov Y1 - 2008/06// PY - 2008 DA - June 2008 SP - 607 EP - 610 VL - 79 IS - 6 SN - 0095-6562, 0095-6562 KW - Antiemetics KW - 0 KW - Hypnotics and Sedatives KW - Index Medicus KW - Space life sciences KW - Humans KW - Cohort Studies KW - Adult KW - Retrospective Studies KW - Aged KW - Middle Aged KW - Drug Synergism KW - United States -- epidemiology KW - Accidents, Occupational KW - Male KW - Prevalence KW - Self Medication -- adverse effects KW - Accidents, Aviation -- mortality KW - Substance-Related Disorders -- complications KW - Hypnotics and Sedatives -- adverse effects KW - Antiemetics -- adverse effects UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/69257109?accountid=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=Aviation%2C+space%2C+and+environmental+medicine&rft.atitle=Antiemetic+and+sedative+levels+found+together+in+26+civil+aviation+pilot+fatalities%2C+2000-2006.&rft.au=Botch%2C+Sabra+R%3BJohnson%2C+Robert+D&rft.aulast=Botch&rft.aufirst=Sabra&rft.date=2008-06-01&rft.volume=79&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=607&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aviation%2C+space%2C+and+environmental+medicine&rft.issn=00956562&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2008-07-22 N1 - Date created - 2008-06-27 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). AN - 36410212; 13462 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a seven-mile rail line in Medina County, Texas is proposed to connect a proposed Vulcan Construction Materials, LP limestone quarry and the Del Rio subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) near Dunlay. The project corridor lies 30 mile west of San Antonio in southcentral Texas. The Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (the applicant; SGR) would construct and operate the railway. The project would include the construction of a loading track at the primary quarry site to handle and load materials into rail cars. The track layout of the loading track world consist of either a two-mile loading loop or a series of one-mile parallel tracks in the same general area. In addition to the loading track, SGR would construct a rail interchange area close to the connection with the UP line, consisting of a single main track and, possibly a side track, approximately one mile in length; the side track could be used to store a loaded or unloaded train temporarily. SGR would operate approximately four trains per day, including both inbound (empty) and outbound (loaded) traffic. SGR or UP would own, lease, and/or operate the engine and cars on the track. This final EIS considers truck and conveyor systems mode alternatives and four rail route alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The railway would provide an efficient means of transporting limestone from the quarry to the UP rail line. This would obviate 1,700 truck trips per day to transport the limestone, precluding the need to construct a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line and eliminating the large number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone. Rail shipment would provide for rapid supply to markets in the Houston area as well as to other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The line would traverse six drainage features with intermittent seasonal flow, specifically, Cherry, Quihi, Polecat, and Elm creeks and unnamed tributaries of Elm Creek and Hondo Creek. The proposed rail route would cross one state maintained road (Farm-to-Market 2676) and County Roads 454, 4516, 4512, 365, and 353, creating an at-grade train-car conflict hazard at each crossing point. Two gas pipeline corridors would be crossed, but one of the lines has been removed and the other in inactive. The area near the loading loop (or alternative parallel loading lines) would be susceptible to karst feature development at a higher elevation than the 950-foot contour along Polecat and Elm creeks. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0243D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080224, Final EIS (Vol. I)--361 pages, Appendices A and B--407 pages and maps, Appendices C through F--426 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Pipelines KW - Quarries KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). [Part 6 of 7] T2 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). AN - 36399042; 13462-080224_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a seven-mile rail line in Medina County, Texas is proposed to connect a proposed Vulcan Construction Materials, LP limestone quarry and the Del Rio subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) near Dunlay. The project corridor lies 30 mile west of San Antonio in southcentral Texas. The Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (the applicant; SGR) would construct and operate the railway. The project would include the construction of a loading track at the primary quarry site to handle and load materials into rail cars. The track layout of the loading track world consist of either a two-mile loading loop or a series of one-mile parallel tracks in the same general area. In addition to the loading track, SGR would construct a rail interchange area close to the connection with the UP line, consisting of a single main track and, possibly a side track, approximately one mile in length; the side track could be used to store a loaded or unloaded train temporarily. SGR would operate approximately four trains per day, including both inbound (empty) and outbound (loaded) traffic. SGR or UP would own, lease, and/or operate the engine and cars on the track. This final EIS considers truck and conveyor systems mode alternatives and four rail route alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The railway would provide an efficient means of transporting limestone from the quarry to the UP rail line. This would obviate 1,700 truck trips per day to transport the limestone, precluding the need to construct a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line and eliminating the large number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone. Rail shipment would provide for rapid supply to markets in the Houston area as well as to other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The line would traverse six drainage features with intermittent seasonal flow, specifically, Cherry, Quihi, Polecat, and Elm creeks and unnamed tributaries of Elm Creek and Hondo Creek. The proposed rail route would cross one state maintained road (Farm-to-Market 2676) and County Roads 454, 4516, 4512, 365, and 353, creating an at-grade train-car conflict hazard at each crossing point. Two gas pipeline corridors would be crossed, but one of the lines has been removed and the other in inactive. The area near the loading loop (or alternative parallel loading lines) would be susceptible to karst feature development at a higher elevation than the 950-foot contour along Polecat and Elm creeks. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0243D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080224, Final EIS (Vol. I)--361 pages, Appendices A and B--407 pages and maps, Appendices C through F--426 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Pipelines KW - Quarries KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36399042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). [Part 5 of 7] T2 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). AN - 36391958; 13462-080224_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a seven-mile rail line in Medina County, Texas is proposed to connect a proposed Vulcan Construction Materials, LP limestone quarry and the Del Rio subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) near Dunlay. The project corridor lies 30 mile west of San Antonio in southcentral Texas. The Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (the applicant; SGR) would construct and operate the railway. The project would include the construction of a loading track at the primary quarry site to handle and load materials into rail cars. The track layout of the loading track world consist of either a two-mile loading loop or a series of one-mile parallel tracks in the same general area. In addition to the loading track, SGR would construct a rail interchange area close to the connection with the UP line, consisting of a single main track and, possibly a side track, approximately one mile in length; the side track could be used to store a loaded or unloaded train temporarily. SGR would operate approximately four trains per day, including both inbound (empty) and outbound (loaded) traffic. SGR or UP would own, lease, and/or operate the engine and cars on the track. This final EIS considers truck and conveyor systems mode alternatives and four rail route alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The railway would provide an efficient means of transporting limestone from the quarry to the UP rail line. This would obviate 1,700 truck trips per day to transport the limestone, precluding the need to construct a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line and eliminating the large number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone. Rail shipment would provide for rapid supply to markets in the Houston area as well as to other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The line would traverse six drainage features with intermittent seasonal flow, specifically, Cherry, Quihi, Polecat, and Elm creeks and unnamed tributaries of Elm Creek and Hondo Creek. The proposed rail route would cross one state maintained road (Farm-to-Market 2676) and County Roads 454, 4516, 4512, 365, and 353, creating an at-grade train-car conflict hazard at each crossing point. Two gas pipeline corridors would be crossed, but one of the lines has been removed and the other in inactive. The area near the loading loop (or alternative parallel loading lines) would be susceptible to karst feature development at a higher elevation than the 950-foot contour along Polecat and Elm creeks. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0243D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080224, Final EIS (Vol. I)--361 pages, Appendices A and B--407 pages and maps, Appendices C through F--426 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Pipelines KW - Quarries KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SUISUN CITY, FAIRFIELD, AND VACAVILLE, AND UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SUISUN CITY, FAIRFIELD, AND VACAVILLE, AND UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36390603; 13458-080220_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure within the Jepson Parkway corridor in Solano County, California is proposed. The corridor traverses the cities of Suisun, Fairfield, and Vacaville as well as unincorporated portions of Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City on the south. Five alternatives, including the No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The project would upgrade ad link a series of existing local two- and four lane roadways and, under one alternative, extend an existing roadway to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for residents who face increasing congestion when traveling between communities in central Solano County. Roadways under consideration for improvements include Peabody Road, Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, Huntington Drive, Air Base Parkway, and/or Walters Road; the latter is the facility that may be extended to the north. In addition to roadway widening and extension, the project would provide a grade-separated crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and a partial interchange at the intersection of Airbase Parkway and Peabody Road; drainage crossing improvements at the Putah Canal and Alamo, New Alamo, McCoy, and Union creeks; a trail to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, landscaping; and landscaping and utility improvements. The project would also include safety improvements such as the provision of roadway medians, traffic signals, shoulders, separate turn lanes, railroad grade separations, and separate bike lanes. Project implementation would occur over 12 to 24 months interspersed across a 48- to 60-month period. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The improved parkway would provide a safe, convenient route for local traffic in this portion of Solano County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 29.6 to 75.4 acres of farmland, four to 11 commercial enterprises employing 40 to 224 workers, 26 single-family and 10 multi-family residences, and up to two community facilities. Habitat losses would include one to 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oaks, 1,1 to 4.3 acres of wetlands, and habitat for a number of mostly avian animal species and pappose spikeweed. Three to four intersections within the corridor would continue to operate below local level-of-service standards in 2010, but all intersections in the corridor would operate in compliance with local standards by 2030. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains and significantly alter drainage patterns in the area. The corridor lies within a highly active seismic fault zone. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and either Leisure Town Road or Peabody Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080220, 344 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SUISUN+CITY%2C+FAIRFIELD%2C+AND+VACAVILLE%2C+AND+UNINCORPORATED+PORTIONS+OF+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SUISUN+CITY%2C+FAIRFIELD%2C+AND+VACAVILLE%2C+AND+UNINCORPORATED+PORTIONS+OF+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). [Part 7 of 7] T2 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). AN - 36385962; 13462-080224_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a seven-mile rail line in Medina County, Texas is proposed to connect a proposed Vulcan Construction Materials, LP limestone quarry and the Del Rio subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) near Dunlay. The project corridor lies 30 mile west of San Antonio in southcentral Texas. The Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (the applicant; SGR) would construct and operate the railway. The project would include the construction of a loading track at the primary quarry site to handle and load materials into rail cars. The track layout of the loading track world consist of either a two-mile loading loop or a series of one-mile parallel tracks in the same general area. In addition to the loading track, SGR would construct a rail interchange area close to the connection with the UP line, consisting of a single main track and, possibly a side track, approximately one mile in length; the side track could be used to store a loaded or unloaded train temporarily. SGR would operate approximately four trains per day, including both inbound (empty) and outbound (loaded) traffic. SGR or UP would own, lease, and/or operate the engine and cars on the track. This final EIS considers truck and conveyor systems mode alternatives and four rail route alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The railway would provide an efficient means of transporting limestone from the quarry to the UP rail line. This would obviate 1,700 truck trips per day to transport the limestone, precluding the need to construct a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line and eliminating the large number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone. Rail shipment would provide for rapid supply to markets in the Houston area as well as to other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The line would traverse six drainage features with intermittent seasonal flow, specifically, Cherry, Quihi, Polecat, and Elm creeks and unnamed tributaries of Elm Creek and Hondo Creek. The proposed rail route would cross one state maintained road (Farm-to-Market 2676) and County Roads 454, 4516, 4512, 365, and 353, creating an at-grade train-car conflict hazard at each crossing point. Two gas pipeline corridors would be crossed, but one of the lines has been removed and the other in inactive. The area near the loading loop (or alternative parallel loading lines) would be susceptible to karst feature development at a higher elevation than the 950-foot contour along Polecat and Elm creeks. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0243D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080224, Final EIS (Vol. I)--361 pages, Appendices A and B--407 pages and maps, Appendices C through F--426 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Pipelines KW - Quarries KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SUISUN CITY, FAIRFIELD, AND VACAVILLE, AND UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SUISUN CITY, FAIRFIELD, AND VACAVILLE, AND UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36383255; 13458-080220_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure within the Jepson Parkway corridor in Solano County, California is proposed. The corridor traverses the cities of Suisun, Fairfield, and Vacaville as well as unincorporated portions of Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City on the south. Five alternatives, including the No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The project would upgrade ad link a series of existing local two- and four lane roadways and, under one alternative, extend an existing roadway to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for residents who face increasing congestion when traveling between communities in central Solano County. Roadways under consideration for improvements include Peabody Road, Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, Huntington Drive, Air Base Parkway, and/or Walters Road; the latter is the facility that may be extended to the north. In addition to roadway widening and extension, the project would provide a grade-separated crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and a partial interchange at the intersection of Airbase Parkway and Peabody Road; drainage crossing improvements at the Putah Canal and Alamo, New Alamo, McCoy, and Union creeks; a trail to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, landscaping; and landscaping and utility improvements. The project would also include safety improvements such as the provision of roadway medians, traffic signals, shoulders, separate turn lanes, railroad grade separations, and separate bike lanes. Project implementation would occur over 12 to 24 months interspersed across a 48- to 60-month period. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The improved parkway would provide a safe, convenient route for local traffic in this portion of Solano County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 29.6 to 75.4 acres of farmland, four to 11 commercial enterprises employing 40 to 224 workers, 26 single-family and 10 multi-family residences, and up to two community facilities. Habitat losses would include one to 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oaks, 1,1 to 4.3 acres of wetlands, and habitat for a number of mostly avian animal species and pappose spikeweed. Three to four intersections within the corridor would continue to operate below local level-of-service standards in 2010, but all intersections in the corridor would operate in compliance with local standards by 2030. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains and significantly alter drainage patterns in the area. The corridor lies within a highly active seismic fault zone. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and either Leisure Town Road or Peabody Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080220, 344 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SUISUN+CITY%2C+FAIRFIELD%2C+AND+VACAVILLE%2C+AND+UNINCORPORATED+PORTIONS+OF+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SUISUN+CITY%2C+FAIRFIELD%2C+AND+VACAVILLE%2C+AND+UNINCORPORATED+PORTIONS+OF+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). [Part 3 of 7] T2 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). AN - 36382989; 13462-080224_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a seven-mile rail line in Medina County, Texas is proposed to connect a proposed Vulcan Construction Materials, LP limestone quarry and the Del Rio subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) near Dunlay. The project corridor lies 30 mile west of San Antonio in southcentral Texas. The Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (the applicant; SGR) would construct and operate the railway. The project would include the construction of a loading track at the primary quarry site to handle and load materials into rail cars. The track layout of the loading track world consist of either a two-mile loading loop or a series of one-mile parallel tracks in the same general area. In addition to the loading track, SGR would construct a rail interchange area close to the connection with the UP line, consisting of a single main track and, possibly a side track, approximately one mile in length; the side track could be used to store a loaded or unloaded train temporarily. SGR would operate approximately four trains per day, including both inbound (empty) and outbound (loaded) traffic. SGR or UP would own, lease, and/or operate the engine and cars on the track. This final EIS considers truck and conveyor systems mode alternatives and four rail route alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The railway would provide an efficient means of transporting limestone from the quarry to the UP rail line. This would obviate 1,700 truck trips per day to transport the limestone, precluding the need to construct a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line and eliminating the large number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone. Rail shipment would provide for rapid supply to markets in the Houston area as well as to other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The line would traverse six drainage features with intermittent seasonal flow, specifically, Cherry, Quihi, Polecat, and Elm creeks and unnamed tributaries of Elm Creek and Hondo Creek. The proposed rail route would cross one state maintained road (Farm-to-Market 2676) and County Roads 454, 4516, 4512, 365, and 353, creating an at-grade train-car conflict hazard at each crossing point. Two gas pipeline corridors would be crossed, but one of the lines has been removed and the other in inactive. The area near the loading loop (or alternative parallel loading lines) would be susceptible to karst feature development at a higher elevation than the 950-foot contour along Polecat and Elm creeks. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0243D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080224, Final EIS (Vol. I)--361 pages, Appendices A and B--407 pages and maps, Appendices C through F--426 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Pipelines KW - Quarries KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). [Part 2 of 7] T2 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). AN - 36382920; 13462-080224_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a seven-mile rail line in Medina County, Texas is proposed to connect a proposed Vulcan Construction Materials, LP limestone quarry and the Del Rio subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) near Dunlay. The project corridor lies 30 mile west of San Antonio in southcentral Texas. The Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (the applicant; SGR) would construct and operate the railway. The project would include the construction of a loading track at the primary quarry site to handle and load materials into rail cars. The track layout of the loading track world consist of either a two-mile loading loop or a series of one-mile parallel tracks in the same general area. In addition to the loading track, SGR would construct a rail interchange area close to the connection with the UP line, consisting of a single main track and, possibly a side track, approximately one mile in length; the side track could be used to store a loaded or unloaded train temporarily. SGR would operate approximately four trains per day, including both inbound (empty) and outbound (loaded) traffic. SGR or UP would own, lease, and/or operate the engine and cars on the track. This final EIS considers truck and conveyor systems mode alternatives and four rail route alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The railway would provide an efficient means of transporting limestone from the quarry to the UP rail line. This would obviate 1,700 truck trips per day to transport the limestone, precluding the need to construct a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line and eliminating the large number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone. Rail shipment would provide for rapid supply to markets in the Houston area as well as to other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The line would traverse six drainage features with intermittent seasonal flow, specifically, Cherry, Quihi, Polecat, and Elm creeks and unnamed tributaries of Elm Creek and Hondo Creek. The proposed rail route would cross one state maintained road (Farm-to-Market 2676) and County Roads 454, 4516, 4512, 365, and 353, creating an at-grade train-car conflict hazard at each crossing point. Two gas pipeline corridors would be crossed, but one of the lines has been removed and the other in inactive. The area near the loading loop (or alternative parallel loading lines) would be susceptible to karst feature development at a higher elevation than the 950-foot contour along Polecat and Elm creeks. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0243D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080224, Final EIS (Vol. I)--361 pages, Appendices A and B--407 pages and maps, Appendices C through F--426 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Pipelines KW - Quarries KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). [Part 1 of 7] T2 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). AN - 36382035; 13462-080224_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a seven-mile rail line in Medina County, Texas is proposed to connect a proposed Vulcan Construction Materials, LP limestone quarry and the Del Rio subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) near Dunlay. The project corridor lies 30 mile west of San Antonio in southcentral Texas. The Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (the applicant; SGR) would construct and operate the railway. The project would include the construction of a loading track at the primary quarry site to handle and load materials into rail cars. The track layout of the loading track world consist of either a two-mile loading loop or a series of one-mile parallel tracks in the same general area. In addition to the loading track, SGR would construct a rail interchange area close to the connection with the UP line, consisting of a single main track and, possibly a side track, approximately one mile in length; the side track could be used to store a loaded or unloaded train temporarily. SGR would operate approximately four trains per day, including both inbound (empty) and outbound (loaded) traffic. SGR or UP would own, lease, and/or operate the engine and cars on the track. This final EIS considers truck and conveyor systems mode alternatives and four rail route alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The railway would provide an efficient means of transporting limestone from the quarry to the UP rail line. This would obviate 1,700 truck trips per day to transport the limestone, precluding the need to construct a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line and eliminating the large number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone. Rail shipment would provide for rapid supply to markets in the Houston area as well as to other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The line would traverse six drainage features with intermittent seasonal flow, specifically, Cherry, Quihi, Polecat, and Elm creeks and unnamed tributaries of Elm Creek and Hondo Creek. The proposed rail route would cross one state maintained road (Farm-to-Market 2676) and County Roads 454, 4516, 4512, 365, and 353, creating an at-grade train-car conflict hazard at each crossing point. Two gas pipeline corridors would be crossed, but one of the lines has been removed and the other in inactive. The area near the loading loop (or alternative parallel loading lines) would be susceptible to karst feature development at a higher elevation than the 950-foot contour along Polecat and Elm creeks. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0243D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080224, Final EIS (Vol. I)--361 pages, Appendices A and B--407 pages and maps, Appendices C through F--426 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Pipelines KW - Quarries KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SUISUN CITY, FAIRFIELD, AND VACAVILLE, AND UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SUISUN CITY, FAIRFIELD, AND VACAVILLE, AND UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36380330; 13458-080220_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure within the Jepson Parkway corridor in Solano County, California is proposed. The corridor traverses the cities of Suisun, Fairfield, and Vacaville as well as unincorporated portions of Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City on the south. Five alternatives, including the No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The project would upgrade ad link a series of existing local two- and four lane roadways and, under one alternative, extend an existing roadway to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for residents who face increasing congestion when traveling between communities in central Solano County. Roadways under consideration for improvements include Peabody Road, Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, Huntington Drive, Air Base Parkway, and/or Walters Road; the latter is the facility that may be extended to the north. In addition to roadway widening and extension, the project would provide a grade-separated crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and a partial interchange at the intersection of Airbase Parkway and Peabody Road; drainage crossing improvements at the Putah Canal and Alamo, New Alamo, McCoy, and Union creeks; a trail to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, landscaping; and landscaping and utility improvements. The project would also include safety improvements such as the provision of roadway medians, traffic signals, shoulders, separate turn lanes, railroad grade separations, and separate bike lanes. Project implementation would occur over 12 to 24 months interspersed across a 48- to 60-month period. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The improved parkway would provide a safe, convenient route for local traffic in this portion of Solano County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 29.6 to 75.4 acres of farmland, four to 11 commercial enterprises employing 40 to 224 workers, 26 single-family and 10 multi-family residences, and up to two community facilities. Habitat losses would include one to 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oaks, 1,1 to 4.3 acres of wetlands, and habitat for a number of mostly avian animal species and pappose spikeweed. Three to four intersections within the corridor would continue to operate below local level-of-service standards in 2010, but all intersections in the corridor would operate in compliance with local standards by 2030. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains and significantly alter drainage patterns in the area. The corridor lies within a highly active seismic fault zone. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and either Leisure Town Road or Peabody Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080220, 344 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SUISUN+CITY%2C+FAIRFIELD%2C+AND+VACAVILLE%2C+AND+UNINCORPORATED+PORTIONS+OF+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SUISUN+CITY%2C+FAIRFIELD%2C+AND+VACAVILLE%2C+AND+UNINCORPORATED+PORTIONS+OF+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). [Part 4 of 7] T2 - SOUTHWEST GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION, MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34284). AN - 36379828; 13462-080224_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a seven-mile rail line in Medina County, Texas is proposed to connect a proposed Vulcan Construction Materials, LP limestone quarry and the Del Rio subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) near Dunlay. The project corridor lies 30 mile west of San Antonio in southcentral Texas. The Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (the applicant; SGR) would construct and operate the railway. The project would include the construction of a loading track at the primary quarry site to handle and load materials into rail cars. The track layout of the loading track world consist of either a two-mile loading loop or a series of one-mile parallel tracks in the same general area. In addition to the loading track, SGR would construct a rail interchange area close to the connection with the UP line, consisting of a single main track and, possibly a side track, approximately one mile in length; the side track could be used to store a loaded or unloaded train temporarily. SGR would operate approximately four trains per day, including both inbound (empty) and outbound (loaded) traffic. SGR or UP would own, lease, and/or operate the engine and cars on the track. This final EIS considers truck and conveyor systems mode alternatives and four rail route alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The railway would provide an efficient means of transporting limestone from the quarry to the UP rail line. This would obviate 1,700 truck trips per day to transport the limestone, precluding the need to construct a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line and eliminating the large number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone. Rail shipment would provide for rapid supply to markets in the Houston area as well as to other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The line would traverse six drainage features with intermittent seasonal flow, specifically, Cherry, Quihi, Polecat, and Elm creeks and unnamed tributaries of Elm Creek and Hondo Creek. The proposed rail route would cross one state maintained road (Farm-to-Market 2676) and County Roads 454, 4516, 4512, 365, and 353, creating an at-grade train-car conflict hazard at each crossing point. Two gas pipeline corridors would be crossed, but one of the lines has been removed and the other in inactive. The area near the loading loop (or alternative parallel loading lines) would be susceptible to karst feature development at a higher elevation than the 950-foot contour along Polecat and Elm creeks. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0243D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080224, Final EIS (Vol. I)--361 pages, Appendices A and B--407 pages and maps, Appendices C through F--426 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Pipelines KW - Quarries KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+GULF+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%2C+MEDINA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+34284%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SUISUN CITY, FAIRFIELD, AND VACAVILLE, AND UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16368794; 13458 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure within the Jepson Parkway corridor in Solano County, California is proposed. The corridor traverses the cities of Suisun, Fairfield, and Vacaville as well as unincorporated portions of Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City on the south. Five alternatives, including the No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The project would upgrade ad link a series of existing local two- and four lane roadways and, under one alternative, extend an existing roadway to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for residents who face increasing congestion when traveling between communities in central Solano County. Roadways under consideration for improvements include Peabody Road, Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, Huntington Drive, Air Base Parkway, and/or Walters Road; the latter is the facility that may be extended to the north. In addition to roadway widening and extension, the project would provide a grade-separated crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and a partial interchange at the intersection of Airbase Parkway and Peabody Road; drainage crossing improvements at the Putah Canal and Alamo, New Alamo, McCoy, and Union creeks; a trail to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, landscaping; and landscaping and utility improvements. The project would also include safety improvements such as the provision of roadway medians, traffic signals, shoulders, separate turn lanes, railroad grade separations, and separate bike lanes. Project implementation would occur over 12 to 24 months interspersed across a 48- to 60-month period. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The improved parkway would provide a safe, convenient route for local traffic in this portion of Solano County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would convert 29.6 to 75.4 acres of farmland, four to 11 commercial enterprises employing 40 to 224 workers, 26 single-family and 10 multi-family residences, and up to two community facilities. Habitat losses would include one to 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oaks, 1,1 to 4.3 acres of wetlands, and habitat for a number of mostly avian animal species and pappose spikeweed. Three to four intersections within the corridor would continue to operate below local level-of-service standards in 2010, but all intersections in the corridor would operate in compliance with local standards by 2030. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains and significantly alter drainage patterns in the area. The corridor lies within a highly active seismic fault zone. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and either Leisure Town Road or Peabody Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080220, 344 pages and maps, May 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SUISUN+CITY%2C+FAIRFIELD%2C+AND+VACAVILLE%2C+AND+UNINCORPORATED+PORTIONS+OF+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SUISUN+CITY%2C+FAIRFIELD%2C+AND+VACAVILLE%2C+AND+UNINCORPORATED+PORTIONS+OF+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36391954; 13448-080210_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the city of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alternative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of this draft supplemental EIS, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplement. Under the currently preferred alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 alternative, which is presented in this supplement as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected corridor, the preferred alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080210, 488 pages and maps, May 23, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-DS KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 23, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36390251; 13448-080210_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the city of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alternative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of this draft supplemental EIS, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplement. Under the currently preferred alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 alternative, which is presented in this supplement as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected corridor, the preferred alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080210, 488 pages and maps, May 23, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-DS KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 23, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36389777; 13448-080210_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the city of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alternative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of this draft supplemental EIS, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplement. Under the currently preferred alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 alternative, which is presented in this supplement as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected corridor, the preferred alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080210, 488 pages and maps, May 23, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-DS KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 23, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36384524; 13448-080210_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the city of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alternative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of this draft supplemental EIS, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplement. Under the currently preferred alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 alternative, which is presented in this supplement as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected corridor, the preferred alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080210, 488 pages and maps, May 23, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-DS KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 23, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - US 31 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INTERSTATE 465 TO STATE ROAD 38, HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36380770; 13448-080210_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 12.5-mile segment of US 31 between the North Leg of Interstate 465 (I-465) and State Road (SR) 38 in Hamilton County, Indiana is proposed. The segment under consideration traverses the city of Carmel, Clay Township, the town of Westfield, and Washington Township. I-465 was designated as the southern project terminus because it represented an additional significant east-west arterial that intersects with US 31 north of Westfield. Transportation improvements are needed to increase traffic capacity and address safety deficiencies. US 31 has been designated at "Statewide Mobility Corridor" as well as an important "Commerce Corridor". A No Action Alternative and two freeway alternatives were considered in detail in the the draft EIS of June 2003. Under the preferred alternative variations (Alternative F1 though F6), the existing four-lane roadway would be reconstructed as a six-lane freeway, with a 55-foot median and 10 new interchanges to provide access control. All crossroads that were not accessed via interchange would cross the facility via overpasses or be closed; 18 roads would be closed. While preparation of the final EIS began in 2004, Indiana experienced a gubernatorial change and restructuring of the Indiana Department of Transportation, resulting in significant budgetary adjustments that halted progress on the US 31 project. A subsequent infusion of funds has enabled the implementation of the project, but interim revisions in the project necessitated the development of this draft supplemental EIS, which updates the draft EIS. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplement. Under the currently preferred alternative, known as the Major Moves Alternative, modifies some of the interchange designs forwarded under the preferred alternative identified in the 2003 draft EIS, identified in the supplement as the F4 alternative, which is presented in this supplement as originally proposed and as currently formulated. In addition, the Major Moves alternative would add a slip ramp at the Old Meridian access point, add a round-about interchange design option for 131st and 136st streets. shift the alignment of 136th Street south of its existing alignment, provide an overpass at Union Street, and remove the northern realignment of 191st proposed under Alternative F4. Cost for either the originally proposed F4 Alternative or the currently proposed F4 Alternative is estimated at $434 million, while the cost of the Major Moves Alternative is estimated at $483 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to increasing capacity and improving safety within the affected corridor, the preferred alternative would be one of the four alternatives that would forward the requirements of statewide planning direction. Moreover, Alternative F would require the less right-of-way than the other action alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the currently preferred alternative would displace 354.3 acres of land, including 15.6 acres of industrial land, 27.4 acres of institutional land, 34.8 acres of residential land, 81 acres of farmland, 31 acres of forest, 45.3 acres of 100-year floodplain, 6.8 acres of wetlands, 94.3 acres of commercial land, 17.3 acres of shrub/brush rangeland, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland, Relocated structures would include two churches, 55 single-family residences, one multi-unit residence, 28 retail outlets, 17 office structures, and five industrial structures. Land would be removed from two school properties. The project would traverse 31 streams and ditches, affecting 8,313 linear feet of channel. Ten archaeological sites and 54 acres within which there is a high probably of archaeological sites would be affected, and one structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would also be affected. Construction workers would encounter 34 hazardous materials sites. A total of 28 noise sensitive sites would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0465D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080210, 488 pages and maps, May 23, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-03-01-DS KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+465+TO+STATE+ROAD+38%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 23, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36396291; 13449-080211_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36391564; 13449-080211_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36391512; 13449-080211_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36391427; 13449-080211_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36391403; 13449-080211_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36390356; 13449-080211_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36389400; 13449-080211_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36389286; 13449-080211_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36389271; 13449-080211_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36389114; 13449-080211_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36384596; 13449-080211_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36384422; 13449-080211_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080211/080211_0010.txt of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36384345; 13449-080211_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080211/080211_0010.txt KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36382112; 13449-080211_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36380843; 13449-080211_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36380670; 13449-080211_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378924; 13449-080211_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378831; 13449-080211_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 19] T2 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378705; 13449-080211_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN (HST), SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16374234; 13449 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train system linking Sacramento to San Francisco, California is proposed as part of a statewide high-speed train system. The need to improve Californias transportation infrastructure, including the infrastructure in the Bay Area and Central Valley, is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result on California's highway system and at its airports. The high -speed train system would be capable of transporting passengers at up to 200 miles per hour on tracks that are mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The rail system would consist of a state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system that would serve major metropolitan centers in California, including those in the study region. State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be employed. The train would primarily use exclusive track, with small portions of the route on track shared with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and other physical constraints. Extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives would lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignments would be used through mountain passes. The study region was divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. A No Project Alternative and a number of high-speed train system network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location options are considered in this final EIS. Network alternatives consist of combinations of alternative alignments and station location options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The high-speed system would respond to transportation needs of a growing population, surmount capacity and reliability constraints affecting road and air transport for intrastate travel, increase mobility by increasing the intensity of modal connections and providing an alternative high-speed transportation mode, and improve air quality and pressure on natural resources, currently degraded by pressure for highway construction and airport expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 755.6 to 1,638.7 acres, 177.6 to 724.4 acres of floodplain, and 44.4 to 56.1 acres of wetlands. From 75.79 to 133,97 acres of stream would be affected by track traversal. Habitat for 38 to 71 federally protected plant and animal species would be affected. From 78 to 220 cultural resource sites would be disturbed or removed. Rail structures and moving train would mar visual aesthetics along the affected corridors. Moderate ambient noise and vibration increases would be expected along rail corridors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0278D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080211, Final EIS--1,655 pages and maps, Appendices--1,376 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--897 pages, May 22, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAY+AREA+TO+CENTRAL+VALLEY+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+%28HST%29%2C+SACRAMENTO+TO+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36396933; 13443-080205_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36396811; 13443-080205_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36392060; 13443-080205_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36391766; 13443-080205_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36389983; 13443-080205_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36389677; 13443-080205_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36389563; 13443-080205_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36389260; 13443-080205_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36381125; 13443-080205_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 16385588; 13443 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris/Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives were considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative, which has been carried over as the preferred alternative in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0203D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080205, Volume I--401 pages and maps, Volume II--422 pages and maps, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--129 pages, May 19, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. COAST GUARD RULEMAKING FOR DRY CARGO RESIDUE DISCHARGES IN THE GREAT LAKES. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - U.S. COAST GUARD RULEMAKING FOR DRY CARGO RESIDUE DISCHARGES IN THE GREAT LAKES. AN - 36389767; 13441-080203_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of U.S. Coast Guard regulations with respect to the discharge of non-toxic and non-hazardous bulk dry cargo residues (DCR) in the Great Lakes is proposed. The residues of interest are principally include limestone, iron ore, and coal, but lesser quantities of other dry cargo, such as cement and salt, would also be covered by the regulation. A substantial portion of Great Lakes shipping involves bulk dry cargo. During ship loading and unloading, small portions of cargo often fall on ship decks or within ship unloading tunnels. This fallen DCR can contaminate other cargo or pose safety risks to crew members. Traditionally, shippers have managed DRC by periodically washing both the deck and the cargo unloading tunnels with water in a practice known as "cargo sweeping". In order to reduce costs and minimize in-port time, ships typically conduct cargo sweeping while underway in transit between ports, the water and the DCR being together washed off the ship into the lake. Based on voluntary recordkeeping, the shipping of 165 million tons of bulk dry cargo annually results in the sweeping of 500 tons of DCR. Even though the reported amounts of DCR swept are relatively small, there is the potential for impacts to important resources within the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard currently regulates DCR sweepings under an Interim Enforcement Policy (IEP) issued in 1993 and authorized by Congress in 1998. Five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2), which is also the preferred alternative, would allow for the continuation of current DCR sweeping practices in accordance with the IEP, while enforcing mandatory recordkeeping so that the Coast Guard could glean additional information about the practice of sweeping DCR for application in the possible development of future regulations governing DCR sweeping. The alternatives were analyzed with scientific sampling, modeling and testing methods to determine the impacts of each alternative on sediment and benthic and pelagic habitat, water quality, biological resources, invasive species, threatened and endangered species, and essential fish habitat, as well as socioeconomic resources. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 all include the provisions of the proposed action, but provide, variously, for modified DCR sweeping exclusion areas, shoreside measures at ports to reduce amounts of swept DCR, and/or structural, mechanical, and operational changes on ships to reduce amounts of swept DCR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed regulatory action would control nonhazardous, nontoxic DCR sweeping from vessels in the Great Lakes that fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, thereby placing limits on the amounts of these potential pollutants to be released into the lakes ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in continued minor impacts to bottom sediment characteristics, potentially resulting in small and localized shifts in the relative abundance of native benthos and increasing populations of invasive zebra and quagga mussels. Sweeping in some protected and sensitive areas would continue to be allowed. LEGAL MANDATES: Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-293). JF - EPA number: 080203, 267 pages, May 16, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Barges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Great Lakes KW - Pest Control KW - Regulations KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shellfish KW - Ships KW - Toxicity KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Waste Disposal KW - Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+COAST+GUARD+RULEMAKING+FOR+DRY+CARGO+RESIDUE+DISCHARGES+IN+THE+GREAT+LAKES.&rft.title=U.S.+COAST+GUARD+RULEMAKING+FOR+DRY+CARGO+RESIDUE+DISCHARGES+IN+THE+GREAT+LAKES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 16, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 36415414; 13402 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, the March 2008 final EIS addressed a No Action Alternative. This Record of Decision identifies the final EIS proposed action as the preferred alternative and provides a summary of the proposed action and its environmental consequences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would spur development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0118F, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080118, 21 pages, May 14, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36415414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69: SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/US 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2005). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - INTERSTATE 69: SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/US 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2005). AN - 36389060; 13433-080195_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 65-mile segment of transcontinental interstate highway (Interstate 69 (I-69)) beginning at State Route (SR) 385 (Paul Barrett Parkway) in Millington, north to I-155 at Dyersburg in Selby, Tipton, Lauderdale counties, Tennessee is proposed. The facility currently serving the corridor will be heavily congested from the US 51 Bypass around Dyersburg to the I-155 with an unacceptably low level of service by the year 2010. By 2030, virtually all segments of US 51 would be congested, with several segments reaching the lowest gradable level of service. The proposed four-lane, controlled access facility would constitute an independent utility segment of Corridor 18, a congressionally mandated high priority transportation corridor, designated as I-69. Portions of the roadway would follow a new alignment, but one section of one build alternative would following existing US 51. Ten build alternatives, which constitute corridor options and a No-Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of September 2005. Costs of the build alternative considered in 2005 ranged from $492.4 million to $601.1 million. This draft supplement to the draft EIS considers a new 24-mile alternative located entirely within Lauderdale County. constituting a subalternative of Alternative R, which also extended approximately 24 miles in Lauderdale County. The subalternative (Alternative OAF) would begin at Node K north of the Hatchie River, proceed north to the southeast of Ripley, continue northward through the Pecan Drive residential area, cross Old Brownsville Road 1,000 feet southeast of Skyline Drive, and continue northward to US 51, where an interchange would provide inbound and outbound access. From US 51, the alternative would proceed northeastward across Central Curve Road to Curve Nankipoo Road, and terminate at Node G. Cost of the currently proposed alternative in this corridor is $284.1 million, while the estimated cost of the alternative considered in this draft supplement is $292.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing an unfinished portion of High Priority Corridor 18 and I-69. Local motorists would benefit from the upgrading of the currently substandard level of service along US 51 within the study corridor in an area where modal connections are substandard to inadequate. Economic development in the region served by the facility would be enhanced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Respective rights-of-way development impacts of Alternative R and Alternative OAF would result in the displacement of 52 or 53 residences, 1,167 or 1,125 acres of farmland, including 316 or 489 acres of prime and unique farmland, 369 or 386 acres of floodplain, and 16.2 or 39.5 acres of wetlands. Culverts would affect 1,809 or 1,652 linear feet of stream, while bridges would affect 883 or 708 linear feet of stream. Either 4,457 or 3,230 linear feet of stream would be relocated. Regardless of the alternative selected, construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0126D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080195, 188 pages and maps, May 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-05-01-SD KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%3A+SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FUS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%3A+SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FUS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69: SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/US 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2005). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - INTERSTATE 69: SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/US 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2005). AN - 36389042; 13433-080195_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 65-mile segment of transcontinental interstate highway (Interstate 69 (I-69)) beginning at State Route (SR) 385 (Paul Barrett Parkway) in Millington, north to I-155 at Dyersburg in Selby, Tipton, Lauderdale counties, Tennessee is proposed. The facility currently serving the corridor will be heavily congested from the US 51 Bypass around Dyersburg to the I-155 with an unacceptably low level of service by the year 2010. By 2030, virtually all segments of US 51 would be congested, with several segments reaching the lowest gradable level of service. The proposed four-lane, controlled access facility would constitute an independent utility segment of Corridor 18, a congressionally mandated high priority transportation corridor, designated as I-69. Portions of the roadway would follow a new alignment, but one section of one build alternative would following existing US 51. Ten build alternatives, which constitute corridor options and a No-Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of September 2005. Costs of the build alternative considered in 2005 ranged from $492.4 million to $601.1 million. This draft supplement to the draft EIS considers a new 24-mile alternative located entirely within Lauderdale County. constituting a subalternative of Alternative R, which also extended approximately 24 miles in Lauderdale County. The subalternative (Alternative OAF) would begin at Node K north of the Hatchie River, proceed north to the southeast of Ripley, continue northward through the Pecan Drive residential area, cross Old Brownsville Road 1,000 feet southeast of Skyline Drive, and continue northward to US 51, where an interchange would provide inbound and outbound access. From US 51, the alternative would proceed northeastward across Central Curve Road to Curve Nankipoo Road, and terminate at Node G. Cost of the currently proposed alternative in this corridor is $284.1 million, while the estimated cost of the alternative considered in this draft supplement is $292.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing an unfinished portion of High Priority Corridor 18 and I-69. Local motorists would benefit from the upgrading of the currently substandard level of service along US 51 within the study corridor in an area where modal connections are substandard to inadequate. Economic development in the region served by the facility would be enhanced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Respective rights-of-way development impacts of Alternative R and Alternative OAF would result in the displacement of 52 or 53 residences, 1,167 or 1,125 acres of farmland, including 316 or 489 acres of prime and unique farmland, 369 or 386 acres of floodplain, and 16.2 or 39.5 acres of wetlands. Culverts would affect 1,809 or 1,652 linear feet of stream, while bridges would affect 883 or 708 linear feet of stream. Either 4,457 or 3,230 linear feet of stream would be relocated. Regardless of the alternative selected, construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0126D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080195, 188 pages and maps, May 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-05-01-SD KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%3A+SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FUS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%3A+SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FUS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69: SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/US 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2005). AN - 16368721; 13433 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 65-mile segment of transcontinental interstate highway (Interstate 69 (I-69)) beginning at State Route (SR) 385 (Paul Barrett Parkway) in Millington, north to I-155 at Dyersburg in Selby, Tipton, Lauderdale counties, Tennessee is proposed. The facility currently serving the corridor will be heavily congested from the US 51 Bypass around Dyersburg to the I-155 with an unacceptably low level of service by the year 2010. By 2030, virtually all segments of US 51 would be congested, with several segments reaching the lowest gradable level of service. The proposed four-lane, controlled access facility would constitute an independent utility segment of Corridor 18, a congressionally mandated high priority transportation corridor, designated as I-69. Portions of the roadway would follow a new alignment, but one section of one build alternative would following existing US 51. Ten build alternatives, which constitute corridor options and a No-Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of September 2005. Costs of the build alternative considered in 2005 ranged from $492.4 million to $601.1 million. This draft supplement to the draft EIS considers a new 24-mile alternative located entirely within Lauderdale County. constituting a subalternative of Alternative R, which also extended approximately 24 miles in Lauderdale County. The subalternative (Alternative OAF) would begin at Node K north of the Hatchie River, proceed north to the southeast of Ripley, continue northward through the Pecan Drive residential area, cross Old Brownsville Road 1,000 feet southeast of Skyline Drive, and continue northward to US 51, where an interchange would provide inbound and outbound access. From US 51, the alternative would proceed northeastward across Central Curve Road to Curve Nankipoo Road, and terminate at Node G. Cost of the currently proposed alternative in this corridor is $284.1 million, while the estimated cost of the alternative considered in this draft supplement is $292.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing an unfinished portion of High Priority Corridor 18 and I-69. Local motorists would benefit from the upgrading of the currently substandard level of service along US 51 within the study corridor in an area where modal connections are substandard to inadequate. Economic development in the region served by the facility would be enhanced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Respective rights-of-way development impacts of Alternative R and Alternative OAF would result in the displacement of 52 or 53 residences, 1,167 or 1,125 acres of farmland, including 316 or 489 acres of prime and unique farmland, 369 or 386 acres of floodplain, and 16.2 or 39.5 acres of wetlands. Culverts would affect 1,809 or 1,652 linear feet of stream, while bridges would affect 883 or 708 linear feet of stream. Either 4,457 or 3,230 linear feet of stream would be relocated. Regardless of the alternative selected, construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0126D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080195, 188 pages and maps, May 14, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-05-01-SD KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%3A+SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FUS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%3A+SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FUS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36389672; 13424-080186_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36389278; 13424-080186_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36389175; 13424-080186_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36388938; 13424-080186_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36383717; 13424-080186_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36383638; 13424-080186_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383638?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080186/080186_0010.txt of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36383462; 13424-080186_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080186/080186_0010.txt KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36380348; 13424-080186_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36378268; 13424-080186_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 10] T2 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36378209; 13424-080186_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16372329; 13424 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-29 IMPROVEMENTS IN SIOUX CITY, WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - I-29 IMPROVEMENTS IN SIOUX CITY, WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA. AN - 36389595; 13422-080184_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 3.5 miles of Interstate 29 (I-29) in Sioux City, Iowa is proposed. The proposed improvement would reconfigure four interchanges, specifically, the intersections serving Floyd Boulevard, Nebraska Street/Pierce Street, US 77/Wesley Parkway, and Hamilton Boulevard. All four interchanges are above the statewide average for crash rates according to the most recent available crash data (2001 through 2003) Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives provide variously for full access interchanges, diamond interchanges, modification of on- and off-ramps and frontage roads, construction of braided ramps, and realignment of local roads in the vicinity of the interchanges. Estimated costs of the alternatives range from $1.5 million to $4.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconfiguration of the subject intersections would increase safety, enhance connections to the local roadway system, add one lane in each direction, improve traffic operations, replace aging infrastructure, and ameliorate or eliminate some of the traffic merging problems that occur in the corridor. Out-of-date design features that affect continuity, lane balance, ramp sequence and spacing, and guide signs would be replaced with state-of-the art facilities. Unacceptable pavement conditions and bridge structures would be replaced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of one billboard, four to seven businesses, four to nine structures, and possibly, one storage tank. Cultural resource impacts include the loss of 4.1 to 5.7 acres of parkland and 0.5 to 1.4 acres within the parking lot of the historically significant Tyson Events Center. From 10 to 12 parcels of ecologically significant natural land would be displaced, affecting 1.8 to 2.2 acres. From $1.5 million to $4.0 million worth of taxable lane would be removed from the county tax rolls. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080184, 237 pages and maps, May 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IOWA-EIS-08-01-D KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Iowa KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-29+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+SIOUX+CITY%2C+WOODBURY+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=I-29+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+SIOUX+CITY%2C+WOODBURY+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Ames, Iowa; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-29 IMPROVEMENTS IN SIOUX CITY, WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - I-29 IMPROVEMENTS IN SIOUX CITY, WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA. AN - 36378164; 13422-080184_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 3.5 miles of Interstate 29 (I-29) in Sioux City, Iowa is proposed. The proposed improvement would reconfigure four interchanges, specifically, the intersections serving Floyd Boulevard, Nebraska Street/Pierce Street, US 77/Wesley Parkway, and Hamilton Boulevard. All four interchanges are above the statewide average for crash rates according to the most recent available crash data (2001 through 2003) Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives provide variously for full access interchanges, diamond interchanges, modification of on- and off-ramps and frontage roads, construction of braided ramps, and realignment of local roads in the vicinity of the interchanges. Estimated costs of the alternatives range from $1.5 million to $4.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconfiguration of the subject intersections would increase safety, enhance connections to the local roadway system, add one lane in each direction, improve traffic operations, replace aging infrastructure, and ameliorate or eliminate some of the traffic merging problems that occur in the corridor. Out-of-date design features that affect continuity, lane balance, ramp sequence and spacing, and guide signs would be replaced with state-of-the art facilities. Unacceptable pavement conditions and bridge structures would be replaced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of one billboard, four to seven businesses, four to nine structures, and possibly, one storage tank. Cultural resource impacts include the loss of 4.1 to 5.7 acres of parkland and 0.5 to 1.4 acres within the parking lot of the historically significant Tyson Events Center. From 10 to 12 parcels of ecologically significant natural land would be displaced, affecting 1.8 to 2.2 acres. From $1.5 million to $4.0 million worth of taxable lane would be removed from the county tax rolls. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080184, 237 pages and maps, May 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IOWA-EIS-08-01-D KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Iowa KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-29+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+SIOUX+CITY%2C+WOODBURY+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=I-29+IMPROVEMENTS+IN+SIOUX+CITY%2C+WOODBURY+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Ames, Iowa; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-131 IMPROVEMENT STUDY, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, MICHIGAN AND ELKHART COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - US-131 IMPROVEMENT STUDY, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, MICHIGAN AND ELKHART COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36388869; 13421-080183_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 17-mile stretch of US 131 in St. Joseph County, Michigan and Elkhart County, Indiana is proposed. US 131 begins at the Indiana Toll Road (Interstate 80/Interstate 90) one mile south of the Michigan state line and extends north 270 miles to Petoskey, Michigan. While much of US 131 to the north of the study corridor is limited access freeway, the segment under study consists of two- and four-lane roadway with uncontrolled access, except for a short segment north of the city of Three Rivers where access is controlled. The study corridor extends from the Indiana Toll Road to a logical terminus one mile north of Cowling Road, which is just north of the Three Rivers. US 131 transitions to a divided, controlled access highway at this northern project terminus. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative PA-5, Modified) would begin as a two-lane facility at the state line and follow existing US 131 north to Dickinson Road; along this segment, all intersecting roads would have access to the mainline facility via intersections. North of Dickinson Road, the alternative would provide a two-lane limited access roadway section on a new alignment, curving to the northwest in order to bypass the village of Constantine. Existing US 131 would be realigned south of Stears Road to create a "T" intersection with the new US 131 Constantine bypass. Thereafter, the facility would follow a new alignment northward to Zerbe Road while maintaining at-grade intersections at Riverside Drive, North River Drive, Youngs Prairie, Quarterline Road, and Zerbe Road. A second two-lane bridge would be provided to carry the facility over the St. Joseph River east of Blue School Road. A single 12-foot truck lane would be added in each direction north of Garber Road North of Michigan 60, the alignment would follow existing US 131 from Broadway to Hoffman Road, with conversion of the existing four-lane median (dual turn lanes) section into a five-lane section at this location. North of Hoffman Road, PA-5 would transition back to a four-lane divided cross-section and continue on the existing US 131 alignment to the northern project terminus. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $31.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improved highway would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated future growth in traffic volumes along this rapidly developing corridor, ameliorate roadways inefficiencies by transforming the segment to be improved such that it would cohere with contiguous segments of US 131, and generally improve highway operations in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 36 acres of residential property, 132 acres of farmland, and 1.5 acres of wetlands within two sites. The displacements would result in the relocation of 12 residences and the severance of six agricultural parcels. Construction workers would encounter two potentially contaminated sites. One residential unit would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. The Constantine bypass would introduce a conflicting aesthetic element into a rural 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). JF - EPA number: 080183, 387 pages and maps, May 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-02-03-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Farmlands KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-131+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+AND+ELKHART+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US-131+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+AND+ELKHART+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-131 IMPROVEMENT STUDY, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, MICHIGAN AND ELKHART COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - US-131 IMPROVEMENT STUDY, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, MICHIGAN AND ELKHART COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36381722; 13421-080183_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 17-mile stretch of US 131 in St. Joseph County, Michigan and Elkhart County, Indiana is proposed. US 131 begins at the Indiana Toll Road (Interstate 80/Interstate 90) one mile south of the Michigan state line and extends north 270 miles to Petoskey, Michigan. While much of US 131 to the north of the study corridor is limited access freeway, the segment under study consists of two- and four-lane roadway with uncontrolled access, except for a short segment north of the city of Three Rivers where access is controlled. The study corridor extends from the Indiana Toll Road to a logical terminus one mile north of Cowling Road, which is just north of the Three Rivers. US 131 transitions to a divided, controlled access highway at this northern project terminus. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative PA-5, Modified) would begin as a two-lane facility at the state line and follow existing US 131 north to Dickinson Road; along this segment, all intersecting roads would have access to the mainline facility via intersections. North of Dickinson Road, the alternative would provide a two-lane limited access roadway section on a new alignment, curving to the northwest in order to bypass the village of Constantine. Existing US 131 would be realigned south of Stears Road to create a "T" intersection with the new US 131 Constantine bypass. Thereafter, the facility would follow a new alignment northward to Zerbe Road while maintaining at-grade intersections at Riverside Drive, North River Drive, Youngs Prairie, Quarterline Road, and Zerbe Road. A second two-lane bridge would be provided to carry the facility over the St. Joseph River east of Blue School Road. A single 12-foot truck lane would be added in each direction north of Garber Road North of Michigan 60, the alignment would follow existing US 131 from Broadway to Hoffman Road, with conversion of the existing four-lane median (dual turn lanes) section into a five-lane section at this location. North of Hoffman Road, PA-5 would transition back to a four-lane divided cross-section and continue on the existing US 131 alignment to the northern project terminus. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $31.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improved highway would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated future growth in traffic volumes along this rapidly developing corridor, ameliorate roadways inefficiencies by transforming the segment to be improved such that it would cohere with contiguous segments of US 131, and generally improve highway operations in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 36 acres of residential property, 132 acres of farmland, and 1.5 acres of wetlands within two sites. The displacements would result in the relocation of 12 residences and the severance of six agricultural parcels. Construction workers would encounter two potentially contaminated sites. One residential unit would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. The Constantine bypass would introduce a conflicting aesthetic element into a rural 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). JF - EPA number: 080183, 387 pages and maps, May 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-02-03-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Farmlands KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-131+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+AND+ELKHART+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US-131+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+AND+ELKHART+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-131 IMPROVEMENT STUDY, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, MICHIGAN AND ELKHART COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 16374598; 13421 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 17-mile stretch of US 131 in St. Joseph County, Michigan and Elkhart County, Indiana is proposed. US 131 begins at the Indiana Toll Road (Interstate 80/Interstate 90) one mile south of the Michigan state line and extends north 270 miles to Petoskey, Michigan. While much of US 131 to the north of the study corridor is limited access freeway, the segment under study consists of two- and four-lane roadway with uncontrolled access, except for a short segment north of the city of Three Rivers where access is controlled. The study corridor extends from the Indiana Toll Road to a logical terminus one mile north of Cowling Road, which is just north of the Three Rivers. US 131 transitions to a divided, controlled access highway at this northern project terminus. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative PA-5, Modified) would begin as a two-lane facility at the state line and follow existing US 131 north to Dickinson Road; along this segment, all intersecting roads would have access to the mainline facility via intersections. North of Dickinson Road, the alternative would provide a two-lane limited access roadway section on a new alignment, curving to the northwest in order to bypass the village of Constantine. Existing US 131 would be realigned south of Stears Road to create a "T" intersection with the new US 131 Constantine bypass. Thereafter, the facility would follow a new alignment northward to Zerbe Road while maintaining at-grade intersections at Riverside Drive, North River Drive, Youngs Prairie, Quarterline Road, and Zerbe Road. A second two-lane bridge would be provided to carry the facility over the St. Joseph River east of Blue School Road. A single 12-foot truck lane would be added in each direction north of Garber Road North of Michigan 60, the alignment would follow existing US 131 from Broadway to Hoffman Road, with conversion of the existing four-lane median (dual turn lanes) section into a five-lane section at this location. North of Hoffman Road, PA-5 would transition back to a four-lane divided cross-section and continue on the existing US 131 alignment to the northern project terminus. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $31.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improved highway would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated future growth in traffic volumes along this rapidly developing corridor, ameliorate roadways inefficiencies by transforming the segment to be improved such that it would cohere with contiguous segments of US 131, and generally improve highway operations in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 36 acres of residential property, 132 acres of farmland, and 1.5 acres of wetlands within two sites. The displacements would result in the relocation of 12 residences and the severance of six agricultural parcels. Construction workers would encounter two potentially contaminated sites. One residential unit would be exposed to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. The Constantine bypass would introduce a conflicting aesthetic element into a rural 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). JF - EPA number: 080183, 387 pages and maps, May 6, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-02-03-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Farmlands KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-131+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+AND+ELKHART+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US-131+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+AND+ELKHART+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 16 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36395189; 13419-080181_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36395189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 21 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36390843; 13419-080181_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 5 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36389466; 13419-080181_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 4 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36389351; 13419-080181_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 19 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36389157; 13419-080181_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080181/080181_0020.txt of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36388588; 13419-080181_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080181/080181_0020.txt KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 7 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36388527; 13419-080181_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080181/080181_0010.txt of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36388487; 13419-080181_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080181/080181_0010.txt KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 1 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36383985; 13419-080181_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 6 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36383215; 13419-080181_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 11 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36383193; 13419-080181_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 15 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36382939; 13419-080181_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 13 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36382854; 13419-080181_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 9 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36381627; 13419-080181_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 8 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36381548; 13419-080181_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 2 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36381456; 13419-080181_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 17 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36381296; 13419-080181_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 3 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36380179; 13419-080181_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 18 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36380101; 13419-080181_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 14 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36380027; 13419-080181_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [Part 12 of 21] T2 - PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AN - 36377997; 13419-080181_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a replacement Runway 1R/28L and a new terminal facility and associated actions at Port Columbus International Airport in the city of Columbus, Ohio are proposed. The airport is located on 2,191 acres of land bounded on the south by the Columbus International Air Center and Fifth Avenue and to the west by Stelzer Road. Major carriers represented at the airport include Air Canada, American, American Eagle, Continental, Continental Express, ComAir, Delta, Midwest Connect, Northwest, Skybus, Southwest Airlines, US Airways, US Airways Express, United, and United Express. The airport also provides for two fix-base operators and five corporate aircraft facilities. The airfield system consists of two parallel runways (10R/28L and 10L/28R) are oriented in an east-west direction with lengths of 10,125 feet and 8,000 feet, respectively. All runway ends are equipped with instrument landing systems. The airport's terminal consists of one main processing building with three passenger concourses. The number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2018, and aircraft operations are expected to increase from 243,203 in 2001 to 277,670 in 2018; under the high-growth scenario, those 2018 figures could increase to 7.7 million and 318,250, respectively. The centerpiece of the proposed project is the construction of a 10,113-foot runway to replace Runway 10R/28L, located 702 feet south of the existing runway. In addition, the proposed project would add taxiways to support the replacement runway, provide a new terminal and apron in the midfield and associated ancillary facilities, and implement the air traffic and land use mitigation actions recommended in the 2007 Final Part 150 Study Update at Port Columbus International Airport. The proposal would also include the implementation of a plan to decommission existing Runway 10R/28L, which would be converted into a taxiway; determination of the feasibility of reconstructing the Airport Golf Course; and the demolition of several structures in the south airfield area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two off-site alternatives, and three on-site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enlarged replacement runway would assist airport authorities in meeting the expected increase in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Conversion of the existing runway into a taxiway and addition of additional taxiways would substantially enhance safety at the airfield. The new terminal facility would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of passenger movements at the airport. Increased airport capacity would boost the local economy, particularly with respect to the air freight sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the displacement of 36 residential properties located along East Thirteenth Avenue. Some of the south airfield structures to be demolished possess substantial historic value. Ambient aircraft noise would exceed federal standards for a greater number of properties than are currently affected by threshold. The level of air pollutants generated by airfield operations and use of motor vehicles within the airport would contribute significantly to the degradation of regional air quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080181, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--897 pages and maps, Volume 3--725 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, May 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=PORT+COLUMBUS+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+COLUMBUS%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Romulus, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - State DOT Performance Programs: From Program Development to Strategic Planning AN - 59821063; 200827828 AB - This article presents evidence from selected state transportation departments across the United States that indicates that although many states have established performance measures programs, very few have acted to integrate across the board results into transportation decision-making processes. Transportation-related performance programs across the nation have reached a critical juncture between performance program creation and integration of results into decision-making processes. Only time will tell if the fundamental strength of performance programs, that of enhancing strategic planning, will be unleashed, thereby strengthening the management of transportation programs and the relationship with decision-makers and the public that government transportation providers desperately need. Adapted from the source document. JF - International Journal of Public Administration AU - Compin, Nicholas S AD - California Department of Transportation, 1120 North Street (MS 36), Sacramento, CA 95814, USA Nicholas_Compin@dot.ca.gov Y1 - 2008/05// PY - 2008 DA - May 2008 SP - 616 EP - 638 PB - Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA VL - 31 IS - 6 SN - 0190-0692, 0190-0692 KW - performance measurement, performance management, strategic planning, state DOT performance programs, transportation KW - Measurement KW - Programs KW - Transportation KW - Planning KW - Performance KW - article KW - 9263: public policy/administration; public administration/bureaucracy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59821063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awpsa&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Public+Administration&rft.atitle=State+DOT+Performance+Programs%3A+From+Program+Development+to+Strategic+Planning&rft.au=Compin%2C+Nicholas+S&rft.aulast=Compin&rft.aufirst=Nicholas&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=616&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Public+Administration&rft.issn=01900692&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F01900690701640960 LA - English DB - Worldwide Political Science Abstracts N1 - Date revised - 2008-10-02 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 N1 - CODEN - IJPADR N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Performance; Measurement; Planning; Transportation; Programs DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900690701640960 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Thermo-Kinetic Model of Burning AN - 20168258; 9358884 AB - One main obstacle in developing more effective passive fire protection for transportation is the lack of a quantitative understanding of the relations between the results of various materials fire tests used in this field. The need for multiple testing techniques arises from the complexity of fire phenomena and their sensitivity to environmental conditions. This study addressed this problem by developing a computational tool that predicts the behavior of materials exposed to fire. While it is not expected that this tool will eliminate the need for fire testing, the goal is to considerably reduce the number and complexity of the tests necessary for a comprehensive characterization of the materials of interest. The foundation of this tool is a mathematical model that describes transient thermal energy transport, chemical reactions, and the transport of gases through the condensed phase. The model also captures important aspects of a material's behavior such as charring and intumescence. This technical note provides a detailed description of the one-dimensional version of this model and summarizes the results of the model's verification. JF - Thermo-Kinetic Model of Burning. 32 pp. May 2008. AU - Stoliarov, SI AU - Lyon, R E Y1 - 2008/05// PY - 2008 DA - May 2008 SP - 32 PB - Federal Aviation Administration, [URL:http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov] KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - DOT/FAA/AR-TN08/17 KW - Fires KW - Sensitivity KW - Mathematical models KW - burning KW - Gases KW - Transportation KW - Chemical reactions KW - Environmental conditions KW - H 7000:Fire Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20168258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Health+%26+Safety+Science+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Stoliarov%2C+SI%3BLyon%2C+R+E&rft.aulast=Stoliarov&rft.aufirst=SI&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=32&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Thermo-Kinetic+Model+of+Burning&rft.title=Thermo-Kinetic+Model+of+Burning&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Fuel Tank Flammability Assessment Method Users Manual AN - 20137129; 9358886 AB - The Fuel Tank Flammability Assessment Method (FTFAM) is a Federal Aviation Administration-developed computer model designed as a comparative analysis tool to determine airplane fuel tank flammability as a requirement of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 25.981. The model uses Monte Carlo statistical methods to generate flammability data for certain unknown variables over known distributions for a large number of flights. The FTFAM iterates through each flight, calculating the flammability exposure time of each flight given the data input provided by the user. Calculating this flammability exposure time for a sufficiently large number of flights results in statistically reliable flammability exposure data. These calculations can be performed by the user for virtually any type of airplane fuel tank (body tank, wing tank, auxiliary tank, etc.) both with and without a flammability reduction method being employed. This report serves as a user's manual for this computer model to assist the user in its operation and to discuss the permissible changes that may be made to this model specific to a particular fleet of aircraft. It is updated through version 10 of the FTFAM. The user should reference Advisory Circular 25.981-2A for additional guidance on when to use this model and for a discussion of interpretation of results. JF - Fuel Tank Flammability Assessment Method Users Manual. 80 pp. May 2008. AU - Summer, S M Y1 - 2008/05// PY - 2008 DA - May 2008 SP - 80 PB - Federal Aviation Administration, [URL:http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov] KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - DOT/FAA/AR-05/8 KW - Monte Carlo simulation KW - Federal regulations KW - Fuels KW - computer models KW - Aircraft KW - Flammability KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20137129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Health+%26+Safety+Science+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Summer%2C+S+M&rft.aulast=Summer&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=80&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Fuel+Tank+Flammability+Assessment+Method+Users+Manual&rft.title=Fuel+Tank+Flammability+Assessment+Method+Users+Manual&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT, NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36409395; 13405 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a water storage and supply system, to be known as the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP), in Larimer and Weld counties, Colorado are proposed. As proposed by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the main component of the NISP would consist of a reservoir (Glade Reservoir) with a capacity of 170,00 acre-feet (AF), an associated forebay, pumping station, and diversion structure and canal upgrade to convey water diverted from the Cache la Poudre River to the reservoir. A pipeline connecting the Glade Reservoir to the existing Horsetooth Reservoir would be provided. The NISP would also include the construction and operation of a 40,000-AF reservoir (Galeton Reservoir), an associated forebay, pumping station, and pipeline to deliver water diverted from the South Platte River to Galeton Reservoir. Water exchanges between the Galeton and Glade reservoir diversion locations would be arranged. The project would be a collaborative effort of 12 water providers, facilitated and coordinated by the Conservancy District, to provide 40,000 AF of new reliable water supply to meet a portion of the water providers' estimated supply needs through 2050. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the foregoing proposal. Alternative 3 would provide for a 180,000-AF impoundment (Cactus Hill Reservoir) and a 40,000-AF impoundment (Galeton Reservoir. Alternative 4 would provide either the Glade Reservoir or the Cactus Hill Reservoir as well as the Galeton Reservoir at 20,000 AF and 12,000 AF of agricultural transfers. Two alternative alignments are evaluated with respect to the relocation of US 287; a seven-mile section of the existing highway would be inundated by the Glade Reservoir. Cost of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are estimated at $426 million, $452.2 million, and $570 million to $496 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would allow the 12 participating water suppliers to avoid shortfalls with respect to their water municipal and industrial supply commitments through 2050. Without the NISP, all 12 participants would experience greater shortfalls through each of the next 50 years. the new reservoirs and associated delivery infrastructure would also prevent the conversion of 69,200 acres of currently productive irrigated farmland to dry land uses. The Glade Reservoir would provide for public recreation valued at $17.1 million per year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the new reservoir would inundate 44 acres of wetlands, 2,705 to 2,807 acres of plant communities, and 50 acres of habitat for the federally protected Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the project would reduce streamflows in the Cache la Poudre River and South Platte River. Flows in the Cache la Poudre River would be diverted with the Conservancy District's Grey Mountain water right, currently not a responsibility of the District, became a priority; the greatest changes in flow would occur during the late spring and early summer, affecting flows along 55 miles of the river form the Pourdre Valley Canal to the confluence of the South Platte River. All action alternatives would also divert water from the Cache la Poudre River to the Poudre Valley Canal; the water would be diverted from the section of the river extending 23 miles from the canal downstream to approximately two miles south of Timnath. Public recreation at the Glade Reservoir would seasonally increase traffic in the vicinity. One alternative considered for the relocation of US 287 would require a rock cut through the Morrison Formation, a known fossiliferous formation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). JF - EPA number: 080167, 878 pages and maps, April 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+INTEGRATED+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NORTHERN+COLORADO+WATER+CONSERVANCY+DISTRICT%2C+LARIMER+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTHERN+INTEGRATED+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NORTHERN+COLORADO+WATER+CONSERVANCY+DISTRICT%2C+LARIMER+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 36415730; 13399 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36415730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH CORRIDOR FIXED GUIDEWAY IN HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). AN - 36410773; 13411 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a fixed guideway light rail transit (LRT) line in the Houston North Corridor of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) of Harris County, Texas is proposed. The study area continues to increase in population and employment opportunities, with limited traffic capacity on existing streets and highways resulting in increased travel times, delays, and air pollution concentrations. A No-Build Alternative and three build Alternatives were considered in the final EIS of December 2006. The build alternatives include: 1) the proposed 5.49-mile fixed guideway LRT along existing city streets extending from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Burnett Station within the city of Houston; 2) a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that could be converted to and LRT system in the future; and 3) a permanent BRT system. The rapid transit facilities would connect to the existing METRORail Red Line at the University of Houston-Downtown Station. Under the proposed action, riders would transfer from LRT to BRT at Burnett Station. The BRT, with fixed guideway, would proceed north on North Main Street in mixed flow traffic for 1,600 feet and then enter a guideway in the middle of North Main Street. The line would continue north within the North Main street rights-of-way to Boundary Street. At Boundary Street, the line would turn east and follow Boundary Street to Fulton, where the BRT would turn north on Fulton Street and proceed north to the Northline Mall. BRT and LRT are are part of a broader family of high-capacity transit technologies referred to as guided rapid transit (GRT). The proposed LRT would be accessed via six at-grade stations and one elevated station. The convertible BRT, which would allow for future conversion into an LRT system, would include covered embedded track and other elements along the alignment to allow for the conversion. The convertible BRT system would extend the existing METRORail LRT service from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Burnett Street. The alignment would continue along North Main Street with the BRT vehicles operating in mixed flow traffic for 1,600 feet to Gargan Street. From Gargan Street to Northline Mall a semi-excusive guideway would be provided. The convertible BRT would extend 5.7 miles from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Northline Mall; six at-grade stations and an elevated station at Hardy Yard would provide access to the line. The traditional BRT alternative would identical to the convertible BRT, excepting that no accommodations would be made for a future LRT line. Since the publication of the final EIS, the forecast ridership and costs have been reanalyzed and the results of those analyses indicate that immediate LRT construction would be more cost-effective than implementation of the convertible BRT system followed by an LRT system in the future. Hence, this supplement to the final EIS proposes the construction of the LRT without a preceding BRT phase. The proposed LRT would consist of a 5.26-mile fixed guideway extending from the existing METRORail Red Line at the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Northline Mall. The fixed guideway would primarily use existing city street rights-of-way for its 26- to 34-foot-wide operating corridor. Cost of the LPA system is estimated at $615.8 million in 2007 dollars. In addition to the LRT alternative, this supplemental EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT system would provide transportation options that would maximize the use of transit in the corridor, maximize the use of Hardy Toll Road by commuter and truck traffic, and improve freeway operation conditions on Interstate 45, with little of no need for additional rights-of-way. The availability of mass transit operations along the corridor would benefit the disproportionately minority and low-income population that live within the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development under the proposed action would affect 207 parcels, including 114 full acquisitions. The fixed guideway system would traverse a 100-year floodplain and require the placement of fill below the 100-year water surface elevation at the confluence of White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou. All build alternatives would result in the displacement of structures and districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers would encounter six leaking oil storage tanks located along the rights-of-way. Residents along some portion of the LRT would experience unpleasant levels of noise and vibrations. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS, see 07-0126F, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080173, 747 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Environmental Justice KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Minorities KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts 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/36410773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+CORRIDOR+FIXED+GUIDEWAY+IN+HOUSTON%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=NORTH+CORRIDOR+FIXED+GUIDEWAY+IN+HOUSTON%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36404165; 13396 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each terminus of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative LNG terminal sites, and alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. 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.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080162, 831 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36404165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36391287; 13396-080162_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each terminus of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative LNG terminal sites, and alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. 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.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080162, 831 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36391197; 13396-080162_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each terminus of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative LNG terminal sites, and alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. 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.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080162, 831 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH CORRIDOR FIXED GUIDEWAY IN HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NORTH CORRIDOR FIXED GUIDEWAY IN HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). AN - 36390936; 13411-080173_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a fixed guideway light rail transit (LRT) line in the Houston North Corridor of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) of Harris County, Texas is proposed. The study area continues to increase in population and employment opportunities, with limited traffic capacity on existing streets and highways resulting in increased travel times, delays, and air pollution concentrations. A No-Build Alternative and three build Alternatives were considered in the final EIS of December 2006. The build alternatives include: 1) the proposed 5.49-mile fixed guideway LRT along existing city streets extending from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Burnett Station within the city of Houston; 2) a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that could be converted to and LRT system in the future; and 3) a permanent BRT system. The rapid transit facilities would connect to the existing METRORail Red Line at the University of Houston-Downtown Station. Under the proposed action, riders would transfer from LRT to BRT at Burnett Station. The BRT, with fixed guideway, would proceed north on North Main Street in mixed flow traffic for 1,600 feet and then enter a guideway in the middle of North Main Street. The line would continue north within the North Main street rights-of-way to Boundary Street. At Boundary Street, the line would turn east and follow Boundary Street to Fulton, where the BRT would turn north on Fulton Street and proceed north to the Northline Mall. BRT and LRT are are part of a broader family of high-capacity transit technologies referred to as guided rapid transit (GRT). The proposed LRT would be accessed via six at-grade stations and one elevated station. The convertible BRT, which would allow for future conversion into an LRT system, would include covered embedded track and other elements along the alignment to allow for the conversion. The convertible BRT system would extend the existing METRORail LRT service from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Burnett Street. The alignment would continue along North Main Street with the BRT vehicles operating in mixed flow traffic for 1,600 feet to Gargan Street. From Gargan Street to Northline Mall a semi-excusive guideway would be provided. The convertible BRT would extend 5.7 miles from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Northline Mall; six at-grade stations and an elevated station at Hardy Yard would provide access to the line. The traditional BRT alternative would identical to the convertible BRT, excepting that no accommodations would be made for a future LRT line. Since the publication of the final EIS, the forecast ridership and costs have been reanalyzed and the results of those analyses indicate that immediate LRT construction would be more cost-effective than implementation of the convertible BRT system followed by an LRT system in the future. Hence, this supplement to the final EIS proposes the construction of the LRT without a preceding BRT phase. The proposed LRT would consist of a 5.26-mile fixed guideway extending from the existing METRORail Red Line at the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Northline Mall. The fixed guideway would primarily use existing city street rights-of-way for its 26- to 34-foot-wide operating corridor. Cost of the LPA system is estimated at $615.8 million in 2007 dollars. In addition to the LRT alternative, this supplemental EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT system would provide transportation options that would maximize the use of transit in the corridor, maximize the use of Hardy Toll Road by commuter and truck traffic, and improve freeway operation conditions on Interstate 45, with little of no need for additional rights-of-way. The availability of mass transit operations along the corridor would benefit the disproportionately minority and low-income population that live within the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development under the proposed action would affect 207 parcels, including 114 full acquisitions. The fixed guideway system would traverse a 100-year floodplain and require the placement of fill below the 100-year water surface elevation at the confluence of White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou. All build alternatives would result in the displacement of structures and districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers would encounter six leaking oil storage tanks located along the rights-of-way. Residents along some portion of the LRT would experience unpleasant levels of noise and vibrations. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS, see 07-0126F, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080173, 747 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Environmental Justice KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Minorities KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts 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/36390936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+CORRIDOR+FIXED+GUIDEWAY+IN+HOUSTON%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=NORTH+CORRIDOR+FIXED+GUIDEWAY+IN+HOUSTON%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 36389590; 13399-080165_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36389521; 13396-080162_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each terminus of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative LNG terminal sites, and alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. 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.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080162, 831 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36389041; 13396-080162_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each terminus of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative LNG terminal sites, and alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. 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.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080162, 831 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH CORRIDOR FIXED GUIDEWAY IN HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NORTH CORRIDOR FIXED GUIDEWAY IN HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). AN - 36388694; 13411-080173_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a fixed guideway light rail transit (LRT) line in the Houston North Corridor of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) of Harris County, Texas is proposed. The study area continues to increase in population and employment opportunities, with limited traffic capacity on existing streets and highways resulting in increased travel times, delays, and air pollution concentrations. A No-Build Alternative and three build Alternatives were considered in the final EIS of December 2006. The build alternatives include: 1) the proposed 5.49-mile fixed guideway LRT along existing city streets extending from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Burnett Station within the city of Houston; 2) a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that could be converted to and LRT system in the future; and 3) a permanent BRT system. The rapid transit facilities would connect to the existing METRORail Red Line at the University of Houston-Downtown Station. Under the proposed action, riders would transfer from LRT to BRT at Burnett Station. The BRT, with fixed guideway, would proceed north on North Main Street in mixed flow traffic for 1,600 feet and then enter a guideway in the middle of North Main Street. The line would continue north within the North Main street rights-of-way to Boundary Street. At Boundary Street, the line would turn east and follow Boundary Street to Fulton, where the BRT would turn north on Fulton Street and proceed north to the Northline Mall. BRT and LRT are are part of a broader family of high-capacity transit technologies referred to as guided rapid transit (GRT). The proposed LRT would be accessed via six at-grade stations and one elevated station. The convertible BRT, which would allow for future conversion into an LRT system, would include covered embedded track and other elements along the alignment to allow for the conversion. The convertible BRT system would extend the existing METRORail LRT service from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Burnett Street. The alignment would continue along North Main Street with the BRT vehicles operating in mixed flow traffic for 1,600 feet to Gargan Street. From Gargan Street to Northline Mall a semi-excusive guideway would be provided. The convertible BRT would extend 5.7 miles from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Northline Mall; six at-grade stations and an elevated station at Hardy Yard would provide access to the line. The traditional BRT alternative would identical to the convertible BRT, excepting that no accommodations would be made for a future LRT line. Since the publication of the final EIS, the forecast ridership and costs have been reanalyzed and the results of those analyses indicate that immediate LRT construction would be more cost-effective than implementation of the convertible BRT system followed by an LRT system in the future. Hence, this supplement to the final EIS proposes the construction of the LRT without a preceding BRT phase. The proposed LRT would consist of a 5.26-mile fixed guideway extending from the existing METRORail Red Line at the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Northline Mall. The fixed guideway would primarily use existing city street rights-of-way for its 26- to 34-foot-wide operating corridor. Cost of the LPA system is estimated at $615.8 million in 2007 dollars. In addition to the LRT alternative, this supplemental EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT system would provide transportation options that would maximize the use of transit in the corridor, maximize the use of Hardy Toll Road by commuter and truck traffic, and improve freeway operation conditions on Interstate 45, with little of no need for additional rights-of-way. The availability of mass transit operations along the corridor would benefit the disproportionately minority and low-income population that live within the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development under the proposed action would affect 207 parcels, including 114 full acquisitions. The fixed guideway system would traverse a 100-year floodplain and require the placement of fill below the 100-year water surface elevation at the confluence of White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou. All build alternatives would result in the displacement of structures and districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers would encounter six leaking oil storage tanks located along the rights-of-way. Residents along some portion of the LRT would experience unpleasant levels of noise and vibrations. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS, see 07-0126F, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080173, 747 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Environmental Justice KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Minorities KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts 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/36388694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+CORRIDOR+FIXED+GUIDEWAY+IN+HOUSTON%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=NORTH+CORRIDOR+FIXED+GUIDEWAY+IN+HOUSTON%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH CORRIDOR FIXED GUIDEWAY IN HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NORTH CORRIDOR FIXED GUIDEWAY IN HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). AN - 36388445; 13411-080173_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a fixed guideway light rail transit (LRT) line in the Houston North Corridor of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) of Harris County, Texas is proposed. The study area continues to increase in population and employment opportunities, with limited traffic capacity on existing streets and highways resulting in increased travel times, delays, and air pollution concentrations. A No-Build Alternative and three build Alternatives were considered in the final EIS of December 2006. The build alternatives include: 1) the proposed 5.49-mile fixed guideway LRT along existing city streets extending from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Burnett Station within the city of Houston; 2) a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that could be converted to and LRT system in the future; and 3) a permanent BRT system. The rapid transit facilities would connect to the existing METRORail Red Line at the University of Houston-Downtown Station. Under the proposed action, riders would transfer from LRT to BRT at Burnett Station. The BRT, with fixed guideway, would proceed north on North Main Street in mixed flow traffic for 1,600 feet and then enter a guideway in the middle of North Main Street. The line would continue north within the North Main street rights-of-way to Boundary Street. At Boundary Street, the line would turn east and follow Boundary Street to Fulton, where the BRT would turn north on Fulton Street and proceed north to the Northline Mall. BRT and LRT are are part of a broader family of high-capacity transit technologies referred to as guided rapid transit (GRT). The proposed LRT would be accessed via six at-grade stations and one elevated station. The convertible BRT, which would allow for future conversion into an LRT system, would include covered embedded track and other elements along the alignment to allow for the conversion. The convertible BRT system would extend the existing METRORail LRT service from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Burnett Street. The alignment would continue along North Main Street with the BRT vehicles operating in mixed flow traffic for 1,600 feet to Gargan Street. From Gargan Street to Northline Mall a semi-excusive guideway would be provided. The convertible BRT would extend 5.7 miles from the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Northline Mall; six at-grade stations and an elevated station at Hardy Yard would provide access to the line. The traditional BRT alternative would identical to the convertible BRT, excepting that no accommodations would be made for a future LRT line. Since the publication of the final EIS, the forecast ridership and costs have been reanalyzed and the results of those analyses indicate that immediate LRT construction would be more cost-effective than implementation of the convertible BRT system followed by an LRT system in the future. Hence, this supplement to the final EIS proposes the construction of the LRT without a preceding BRT phase. The proposed LRT would consist of a 5.26-mile fixed guideway extending from the existing METRORail Red Line at the University of Houston-Downtown Station to Northline Mall. The fixed guideway would primarily use existing city street rights-of-way for its 26- to 34-foot-wide operating corridor. Cost of the LPA system is estimated at $615.8 million in 2007 dollars. In addition to the LRT alternative, this supplemental EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT system would provide transportation options that would maximize the use of transit in the corridor, maximize the use of Hardy Toll Road by commuter and truck traffic, and improve freeway operation conditions on Interstate 45, with little of no need for additional rights-of-way. The availability of mass transit operations along the corridor would benefit the disproportionately minority and low-income population that live within the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development under the proposed action would affect 207 parcels, including 114 full acquisitions. The fixed guideway system would traverse a 100-year floodplain and require the placement of fill below the 100-year water surface elevation at the confluence of White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou. All build alternatives would result in the displacement of structures and districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers would encounter six leaking oil storage tanks located along the rights-of-way. Residents along some portion of the LRT would experience unpleasant levels of noise and vibrations. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS, see 07-0126F, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080173, 747 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Environmental Justice KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Minorities KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts 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/36388445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+CORRIDOR+FIXED+GUIDEWAY+IN+HOUSTON%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=NORTH+CORRIDOR+FIXED+GUIDEWAY+IN+HOUSTON%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36381922; 13396-080162_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each terminus of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative LNG terminal sites, and alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. 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.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080162, 831 pages, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 36380427; 13399-080165_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 36378592; 13399-080165_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 36378535; 13399-080165_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CULLINAN RANCH RESTORATION PROJECT, SOLANO AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CULLINAN RANCH RESTORATION PROJECT, SOLANO AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223448; 13394-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of tidal influence to 1,525 acres of land formerly known as the Cullinan Ranch in Solano and Napa counties, California is proposed. The ranch site, which is located near the northern shoe of San Pablo Bay, is bordered by Solano South and Dutchman sloughs to the north, Highway 37 to the south, by a wildlife habitat management area administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife known as CDFG Pond 1 to the west, and by Guadalcanal Village, currently owned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to the east. The Caltrans site is currently being restored to tidal marsh. Prior to the 1900s, and again in the 1940s, sloughs in the vicinity of the race site were diked or eliminated to prevent flooding and to allow the conversion of tidal wetlands and slough channels into upland habitat for agricultural uses. Due to dewatering, portions of the site have subsided. In 1992 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquired the ranch and incorporated it into the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, a preserved designed and managed to protect habitat for threatened and endangered marsh species, including the salt marsh mouse and California clapper rail. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to provisions for public access to the restoration site, the safety of the levee separating the restoration site from Highway 37, and restoration scenarios other than the proposed action. To reintroduce tidal influence to the site, twice-daily tidal flows to the site would be established, resulting in the deposition of sediments that would bring the site to tidal marsh elevations and creating meandering slough channels. Salt-tolerant marsh vegetation would establish itself, increasing the habitat for marsh wildlife species, particularly the two abovementioned endangered species. The restoration project would involve seven sequential components, as follows: 1) construction of a boardwalk to provide access to existing electrical towers; 2) blockage of drainage ditches to promote redevelopment of the natural sloughs; 3) improvement of the Pond 1 levee and installation of associated water control structures; 4) protection of Highway 37 from flooding and erosion; 5) construction of public access areas; 6) breaching of the levees along Dutchman and South sloughs and Guadalcanal Village; and 7) establishment of a long-term monitoring program. In addition to the preferred action, this draft EIS considers a partial restoration alternative, which would implement only components 1 through 5 of the preferred alternative POSITIVE IMPACTS: The restoration project would return the tidal marsh to its natural state, ensuring the survival of endangered marsh-dependent species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The introduction of the tidal influence would result in the conversion of seasonal wetland to tidal marsh, resulting in a loss of habitat for species dependent on the former, including raptors, burrowing mammals, some species of wintering waterfowl, and special status bat species. Permanent fill would be placed in jurisdictional wetlands, resulting in the loss of mosquito breeding habitat would also be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080160, 487 pages, April 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 08-05 KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Preserves KW - Subsidence KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 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/868223448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CULLINAN+RANCH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CULLINAN+RANCH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Petaluma, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CULLINAN RANCH RESTORATION PROJECT, SOLANO AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CULLINAN RANCH RESTORATION PROJECT, SOLANO AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223443; 13394-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of tidal influence to 1,525 acres of land formerly known as the Cullinan Ranch in Solano and Napa counties, California is proposed. The ranch site, which is located near the northern shoe of San Pablo Bay, is bordered by Solano South and Dutchman sloughs to the north, Highway 37 to the south, by a wildlife habitat management area administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife known as CDFG Pond 1 to the west, and by Guadalcanal Village, currently owned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to the east. The Caltrans site is currently being restored to tidal marsh. Prior to the 1900s, and again in the 1940s, sloughs in the vicinity of the race site were diked or eliminated to prevent flooding and to allow the conversion of tidal wetlands and slough channels into upland habitat for agricultural uses. Due to dewatering, portions of the site have subsided. In 1992 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquired the ranch and incorporated it into the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, a preserved designed and managed to protect habitat for threatened and endangered marsh species, including the salt marsh mouse and California clapper rail. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to provisions for public access to the restoration site, the safety of the levee separating the restoration site from Highway 37, and restoration scenarios other than the proposed action. To reintroduce tidal influence to the site, twice-daily tidal flows to the site would be established, resulting in the deposition of sediments that would bring the site to tidal marsh elevations and creating meandering slough channels. Salt-tolerant marsh vegetation would establish itself, increasing the habitat for marsh wildlife species, particularly the two abovementioned endangered species. The restoration project would involve seven sequential components, as follows: 1) construction of a boardwalk to provide access to existing electrical towers; 2) blockage of drainage ditches to promote redevelopment of the natural sloughs; 3) improvement of the Pond 1 levee and installation of associated water control structures; 4) protection of Highway 37 from flooding and erosion; 5) construction of public access areas; 6) breaching of the levees along Dutchman and South sloughs and Guadalcanal Village; and 7) establishment of a long-term monitoring program. In addition to the preferred action, this draft EIS considers a partial restoration alternative, which would implement only components 1 through 5 of the preferred alternative POSITIVE IMPACTS: The restoration project would return the tidal marsh to its natural state, ensuring the survival of endangered marsh-dependent species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The introduction of the tidal influence would result in the conversion of seasonal wetland to tidal marsh, resulting in a loss of habitat for species dependent on the former, including raptors, burrowing mammals, some species of wintering waterfowl, and special status bat species. Permanent fill would be placed in jurisdictional wetlands, resulting in the loss of mosquito breeding habitat would also be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080160, 487 pages, April 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 08-05 KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Preserves KW - Subsidence KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 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/868223443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CULLINAN+RANCH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CULLINAN+RANCH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Petaluma, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CULLINAN RANCH RESTORATION PROJECT, SOLANO AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16376067; 13394 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of tidal influence to 1,525 acres of land formerly known as the Cullinan Ranch in Solano and Napa counties, California is proposed. The ranch site, which is located near the northern shoe of San Pablo Bay, is bordered by Solano South and Dutchman sloughs to the north, Highway 37 to the south, by a wildlife habitat management area administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife known as CDFG Pond 1 to the west, and by Guadalcanal Village, currently owned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to the east. The Caltrans site is currently being restored to tidal marsh. Prior to the 1900s, and again in the 1940s, sloughs in the vicinity of the race site were diked or eliminated to prevent flooding and to allow the conversion of tidal wetlands and slough channels into upland habitat for agricultural uses. Due to dewatering, portions of the site have subsided. In 1992 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquired the ranch and incorporated it into the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, a preserved designed and managed to protect habitat for threatened and endangered marsh species, including the salt marsh mouse and California clapper rail. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to provisions for public access to the restoration site, the safety of the levee separating the restoration site from Highway 37, and restoration scenarios other than the proposed action. To reintroduce tidal influence to the site, twice-daily tidal flows to the site would be established, resulting in the deposition of sediments that would bring the site to tidal marsh elevations and creating meandering slough channels. Salt-tolerant marsh vegetation would establish itself, increasing the habitat for marsh wildlife species, particularly the two abovementioned endangered species. The restoration project would involve seven sequential components, as follows: 1) construction of a boardwalk to provide access to existing electrical towers; 2) blockage of drainage ditches to promote redevelopment of the natural sloughs; 3) improvement of the Pond 1 levee and installation of associated water control structures; 4) protection of Highway 37 from flooding and erosion; 5) construction of public access areas; 6) breaching of the levees along Dutchman and South sloughs and Guadalcanal Village; and 7) establishment of a long-term monitoring program. In addition to the preferred action, this draft EIS considers a partial restoration alternative, which would implement only components 1 through 5 of the preferred alternative POSITIVE IMPACTS: The restoration project would return the tidal marsh to its natural state, ensuring the survival of endangered marsh-dependent species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The introduction of the tidal influence would result in the conversion of seasonal wetland to tidal marsh, resulting in a loss of habitat for species dependent on the former, including raptors, burrowing mammals, some species of wintering waterfowl, and special status bat species. Permanent fill would be placed in jurisdictional wetlands, resulting in the loss of mosquito breeding habitat would also be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080160, 487 pages, April 24, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 08-05 KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Preserves KW - Subsidence KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 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/16376067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CULLINAN+RANCH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CULLINAN+RANCH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Petaluma, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 50 CROSSING STUDY, MD 611 TO MD 378; AND THIRD STREET TO SOMERSET STREET, WORCESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36424258; 13388 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Harry W. Kelly Memorial Bridge across Sinepuxent Bay in Ocean City, Worcester County, Maryland is proposed in this draft EIS. The study corridor extends westward from Maryland Highway (MD) 611 to MD 378. US 50 is a primary highway connecting Ocean City to points west, including the remainder of the Delmarva Peninsula, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay. The 64-year-old bridge is considered functionally obsolete due to its narrow curb-to-curb roadway width, which is substandard for the traffic volumes that it accommodates, particularly during summer months when recreational traffic is particularly heavy. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would involve rehabilitation of the existing bridge, along with the addition of a separate fishing pier, wider sidewalks, and aesthetic improvements. Alternative 4 would provide for new slightly curved high-level fixed span bridge with four lanes, retaining the existing bridge for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and fisherman. Alternative 5 would provide for a new four-lane bridge just south of the existing US 50 crossing, tying back into Division Street. The bridge would have a higher draw span to reduce the number of bridge openings. This alternative would also retain the existing bridge as a separate facility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and fishermen. Alternative 5A would include a new four-lane bridge just north of the existing US 50 crossing, typing back into Division Street. Except for the location of the crossing, Alternative 5A would mimic Alternative 5. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 were dropped from detailed consideration. Costs of Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 5A are estimated at $107 million, $340 million, $289 million, and $268 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would rectify the operational inadequacies and structural deficiencies of the bridge as well as improve the safety for all users of the US 50 crossing of the Sinepuxent Bay. The new bridge would provide a safe and efficient crossing of the bay not only for the hundreds of thousands who access Ocean City each summer, but also for residents and recreationists who will use the crossing as a hurricane evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for new bridge construction (Alternative 4, 5, and 5a) three to 5.5 acres would the displacement of two to 12 businesses and six to 13 residences. New build alternatives would also result in the partial loss of a small tidal wetland along the north side of US 50 at the western edge of the bay. New build alternatives would encroach 1.1 to 4.3 acres of 100-year floodplain. The project would create 0.5 to 5.6 acres of new impervious surface, increasing stormwater runoff into the bay. Dredging and other construction activities would disturb bay bottom sediments and cause fish to avoid the area temporarily, which is considered essential fish habitat. Marine turtles listed as protected by federal authorities could occur in the area during construction. Construction workers could encounter as many as 11 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080154, 225 pages and maps, April 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Safety KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Maryland KW - Sinepuxent Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36424258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+50+CROSSING+STUDY%2C+MD+611+TO+MD+378%3B+AND+THIRD+STREET+TO+SOMERSET+STREET%2C+WORCESTER+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+50+CROSSING+STUDY%2C+MD+611+TO+MD+378%3B+AND+THIRD+STREET+TO+SOMERSET+STREET%2C+WORCESTER+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 50 CROSSING STUDY, MD 611 TO MD 378; AND THIRD STREET TO SOMERSET STREET, WORCESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - US 50 CROSSING STUDY, MD 611 TO MD 378; AND THIRD STREET TO SOMERSET STREET, WORCESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36394224; 13388-080154_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Harry W. Kelly Memorial Bridge across Sinepuxent Bay in Ocean City, Worcester County, Maryland is proposed in this draft EIS. The study corridor extends westward from Maryland Highway (MD) 611 to MD 378. US 50 is a primary highway connecting Ocean City to points west, including the remainder of the Delmarva Peninsula, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay. The 64-year-old bridge is considered functionally obsolete due to its narrow curb-to-curb roadway width, which is substandard for the traffic volumes that it accommodates, particularly during summer months when recreational traffic is particularly heavy. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would involve rehabilitation of the existing bridge, along with the addition of a separate fishing pier, wider sidewalks, and aesthetic improvements. Alternative 4 would provide for new slightly curved high-level fixed span bridge with four lanes, retaining the existing bridge for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and fisherman. Alternative 5 would provide for a new four-lane bridge just south of the existing US 50 crossing, tying back into Division Street. The bridge would have a higher draw span to reduce the number of bridge openings. This alternative would also retain the existing bridge as a separate facility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and fishermen. Alternative 5A would include a new four-lane bridge just north of the existing US 50 crossing, typing back into Division Street. Except for the location of the crossing, Alternative 5A would mimic Alternative 5. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 were dropped from detailed consideration. Costs of Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 5A are estimated at $107 million, $340 million, $289 million, and $268 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would rectify the operational inadequacies and structural deficiencies of the bridge as well as improve the safety for all users of the US 50 crossing of the Sinepuxent Bay. The new bridge would provide a safe and efficient crossing of the bay not only for the hundreds of thousands who access Ocean City each summer, but also for residents and recreationists who will use the crossing as a hurricane evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for new bridge construction (Alternative 4, 5, and 5a) three to 5.5 acres would the displacement of two to 12 businesses and six to 13 residences. New build alternatives would also result in the partial loss of a small tidal wetland along the north side of US 50 at the western edge of the bay. New build alternatives would encroach 1.1 to 4.3 acres of 100-year floodplain. The project would create 0.5 to 5.6 acres of new impervious surface, increasing stormwater runoff into the bay. Dredging and other construction activities would disturb bay bottom sediments and cause fish to avoid the area temporarily, which is considered essential fish habitat. Marine turtles listed as protected by federal authorities could occur in the area during construction. Construction workers could encounter as many as 11 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080154, 225 pages and maps, April 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Safety KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Maryland KW - Sinepuxent Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+50+CROSSING+STUDY%2C+MD+611+TO+MD+378%3B+AND+THIRD+STREET+TO+SOMERSET+STREET%2C+WORCESTER+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+50+CROSSING+STUDY%2C+MD+611+TO+MD+378%3B+AND+THIRD+STREET+TO+SOMERSET+STREET%2C+WORCESTER+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 50 CROSSING STUDY, MD 611 TO MD 378; AND THIRD STREET TO SOMERSET STREET, WORCESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - US 50 CROSSING STUDY, MD 611 TO MD 378; AND THIRD STREET TO SOMERSET STREET, WORCESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36387827; 13388-080154_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Harry W. Kelly Memorial Bridge across Sinepuxent Bay in Ocean City, Worcester County, Maryland is proposed in this draft EIS. The study corridor extends westward from Maryland Highway (MD) 611 to MD 378. US 50 is a primary highway connecting Ocean City to points west, including the remainder of the Delmarva Peninsula, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay. The 64-year-old bridge is considered functionally obsolete due to its narrow curb-to-curb roadway width, which is substandard for the traffic volumes that it accommodates, particularly during summer months when recreational traffic is particularly heavy. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would involve rehabilitation of the existing bridge, along with the addition of a separate fishing pier, wider sidewalks, and aesthetic improvements. Alternative 4 would provide for new slightly curved high-level fixed span bridge with four lanes, retaining the existing bridge for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and fisherman. Alternative 5 would provide for a new four-lane bridge just south of the existing US 50 crossing, tying back into Division Street. The bridge would have a higher draw span to reduce the number of bridge openings. This alternative would also retain the existing bridge as a separate facility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and fishermen. Alternative 5A would include a new four-lane bridge just north of the existing US 50 crossing, typing back into Division Street. Except for the location of the crossing, Alternative 5A would mimic Alternative 5. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 were dropped from detailed consideration. Costs of Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 5A are estimated at $107 million, $340 million, $289 million, and $268 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would rectify the operational inadequacies and structural deficiencies of the bridge as well as improve the safety for all users of the US 50 crossing of the Sinepuxent Bay. The new bridge would provide a safe and efficient crossing of the bay not only for the hundreds of thousands who access Ocean City each summer, but also for residents and recreationists who will use the crossing as a hurricane evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for new bridge construction (Alternative 4, 5, and 5a) three to 5.5 acres would the displacement of two to 12 businesses and six to 13 residences. New build alternatives would also result in the partial loss of a small tidal wetland along the north side of US 50 at the western edge of the bay. New build alternatives would encroach 1.1 to 4.3 acres of 100-year floodplain. The project would create 0.5 to 5.6 acres of new impervious surface, increasing stormwater runoff into the bay. Dredging and other construction activities would disturb bay bottom sediments and cause fish to avoid the area temporarily, which is considered essential fish habitat. Marine turtles listed as protected by federal authorities could occur in the area during construction. Construction workers could encounter as many as 11 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080154, 225 pages and maps, April 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Safety KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Maryland KW - Sinepuxent Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+50+CROSSING+STUDY%2C+MD+611+TO+MD+378%3B+AND+THIRD+STREET+TO+SOMERSET+STREET%2C+WORCESTER+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+50+CROSSING+STUDY%2C+MD+611+TO+MD+378%3B+AND+THIRD+STREET+TO+SOMERSET+STREET%2C+WORCESTER+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 50 CROSSING STUDY, MD 611 TO MD 378; AND THIRD STREET TO SOMERSET STREET, WORCESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - US 50 CROSSING STUDY, MD 611 TO MD 378; AND THIRD STREET TO SOMERSET STREET, WORCESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36379411; 13388-080154_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Harry W. Kelly Memorial Bridge across Sinepuxent Bay in Ocean City, Worcester County, Maryland is proposed in this draft EIS. The study corridor extends westward from Maryland Highway (MD) 611 to MD 378. US 50 is a primary highway connecting Ocean City to points west, including the remainder of the Delmarva Peninsula, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay. The 64-year-old bridge is considered functionally obsolete due to its narrow curb-to-curb roadway width, which is substandard for the traffic volumes that it accommodates, particularly during summer months when recreational traffic is particularly heavy. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would involve rehabilitation of the existing bridge, along with the addition of a separate fishing pier, wider sidewalks, and aesthetic improvements. Alternative 4 would provide for new slightly curved high-level fixed span bridge with four lanes, retaining the existing bridge for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and fisherman. Alternative 5 would provide for a new four-lane bridge just south of the existing US 50 crossing, tying back into Division Street. The bridge would have a higher draw span to reduce the number of bridge openings. This alternative would also retain the existing bridge as a separate facility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and fishermen. Alternative 5A would include a new four-lane bridge just north of the existing US 50 crossing, typing back into Division Street. Except for the location of the crossing, Alternative 5A would mimic Alternative 5. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 were dropped from detailed consideration. Costs of Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 5A are estimated at $107 million, $340 million, $289 million, and $268 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would rectify the operational inadequacies and structural deficiencies of the bridge as well as improve the safety for all users of the US 50 crossing of the Sinepuxent Bay. The new bridge would provide a safe and efficient crossing of the bay not only for the hundreds of thousands who access Ocean City each summer, but also for residents and recreationists who will use the crossing as a hurricane evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for new bridge construction (Alternative 4, 5, and 5a) three to 5.5 acres would the displacement of two to 12 businesses and six to 13 residences. New build alternatives would also result in the partial loss of a small tidal wetland along the north side of US 50 at the western edge of the bay. New build alternatives would encroach 1.1 to 4.3 acres of 100-year floodplain. The project would create 0.5 to 5.6 acres of new impervious surface, increasing stormwater runoff into the bay. Dredging and other construction activities would disturb bay bottom sediments and cause fish to avoid the area temporarily, which is considered essential fish habitat. Marine turtles listed as protected by federal authorities could occur in the area during construction. Construction workers could encounter as many as 11 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080154, 225 pages and maps, April 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Safety KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Maryland KW - Sinepuxent Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+50+CROSSING+STUDY%2C+MD+611+TO+MD+378%3B+AND+THIRD+STREET+TO+SOMERSET+STREET%2C+WORCESTER+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+50+CROSSING+STUDY%2C+MD+611+TO+MD+378%3B+AND+THIRD+STREET+TO+SOMERSET+STREET%2C+WORCESTER+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - High Accuracy Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System. T2 - 2008 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2008) AN - 40869747; 4829193 JF - 2008 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2008) AU - Persaud, Rudy AU - Arnold, James A Y1 - 2008/04/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Apr 15 KW - Positioning systems KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40869747?accountid=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=2008+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2008%29&rft.atitle=High+Accuracy+Nationwide+Differential+Global+Positioning+System.&rft.au=Persaud%2C+Rudy%3BArnold%2C+James+A&rft.aulast=Persaud&rft.aufirst=Rudy&rft.date=2008-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/index.cfm?mtgID=53 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-27 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Precipitation Mosaic for Air Traffic Control (ATC). T2 - 2008 European Geosciences Union General Assembly AN - 40882567; 4832676 JF - 2008 European Geosciences Union General Assembly AU - Moosakhanian, A AU - Jackson, P AU - Brown, W Y1 - 2008/04/13/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Apr 13 KW - Air traffic control KW - Mosaics KW - Traffic KW - Precipitation KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40882567?accountid=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=2008+European+Geosciences+Union+General+Assembly&rft.atitle=Precipitation+Mosaic+for+Air+Traffic+Control+%28ATC%29.&rft.au=Moosakhanian%2C+A%3BJackson%2C+P%3BBrown%2C+W&rft.aulast=Moosakhanian&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2008-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+European+Geosciences+Union+General+Assembly&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.cosis.net/members/meetings/programme/session_programme.php? m_id=49&p_id=325&day=2&view=session LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-27 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT DOLPHIN LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, ST. PETERSBURG BLOCKS PB545, PB589, AND PB590, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE WESTERN COAST OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - PORT DOLPHIN LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, ST. PETERSBURG BLOCKS PB545, PB589, AND PB590, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE WESTERN COAST OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO. AN - 36394779; 13383-080149_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) are proposed by Port Dolphin Energy LLC. The facility, to be known as Port Dolphin, would be located 28 miles off the west coast of Florida to the southwest of Tampa Bay and extend to 100 feet beneath the surface of the water of water. The port would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of three miles. Each unloading buoy would be permanently secured to eight mooring lines consisting of wire rope, chain, and buoyancy elements. Each mooring buoy would be attached to anchor points on the seabed; the anchor points would most likely consist of driven piles. The buoys would be designed to moor a specialized type of LNG vessel known as a shuttle and regasification vessel (SRV) with capacities of between 145,000 and 217,000 cubic meters. SRVs are equipped to vaporize cryogenic LNG cargo to natural gas through onboard closed loop vaporization systems. SRVs are also equipped to odorize and meter gas for send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The SRVs would moor to the unloading buoys which connect through the hull of the vessels to specially designed turrets that would enable the vessel to weathervane or rotate in response to prevailing wind, wave, and current directions. When the vessels were not present, the buoys would be submerged on a special landing pad on the seabed, 60 to 70 feet below the sea surface. Each unloading buoy would connect through a 16-inch-diameter flexible riser and 36-inch-diameter flowline to a Y intersection and thence a 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending 42 miles to Port Manatee in Manatee County, Florida. The pipeline would connect with the Gulfstream Natural Gas System and the Tampa Electric Company (TECO) pipeline system. The 36-inch pipeline would make landfall on Port Manatee property, whence it would extend in a generally easterly direction to the first interconnection point with the Gulfstream System interconnection station site, which would occupy two acres. Up to 80 percent of the daily flow of gas (800 million cubic feet) would be delivered to the Gulfstream System. The remainder of the natural gas from the Port Dolphin would be transported by 14-inch pipeline to the TECO interconnection station, located 5.8 miles east of the Gulfstream interconnection station. Only SRVs would call on Port Dolphin. Offloading of an SRV would require four to eight days. Initially, the port would be capable of a natural gas throughput of 400 million square feet per day, with an eventual daily output of 1,200 million square feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of the high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Several million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. Pipeline construction would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos and the pipeline rights-of-way would traverse vegetated wildlife habitat, including coastal wetlands and inland wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080149, Draft EIS--389 pages, Appendices--441 pages, April 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Coastal Zones KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+DOLPHIN+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+ST.+PETERSBURG+BLOCKS+PB545%2C+PB589%2C+AND+PB590%2C+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OFF+THE+WESTERN+COAST+OF+FLORIDA+IN+GULF+OF+MEXICO.&rft.title=PORT+DOLPHIN+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+ST.+PETERSBURG+BLOCKS+PB545%2C+PB589%2C+AND+PB590%2C+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OFF+THE+WESTERN+COAST+OF+FLORIDA+IN+GULF+OF+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT DOLPHIN LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, ST. PETERSBURG BLOCKS PB545, PB589, AND PB590, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE WESTERN COAST OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - PORT DOLPHIN LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, ST. PETERSBURG BLOCKS PB545, PB589, AND PB590, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE WESTERN COAST OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO. AN - 36380916; 13383-080149_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) are proposed by Port Dolphin Energy LLC. The facility, to be known as Port Dolphin, would be located 28 miles off the west coast of Florida to the southwest of Tampa Bay and extend to 100 feet beneath the surface of the water of water. The port would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of three miles. Each unloading buoy would be permanently secured to eight mooring lines consisting of wire rope, chain, and buoyancy elements. Each mooring buoy would be attached to anchor points on the seabed; the anchor points would most likely consist of driven piles. The buoys would be designed to moor a specialized type of LNG vessel known as a shuttle and regasification vessel (SRV) with capacities of between 145,000 and 217,000 cubic meters. SRVs are equipped to vaporize cryogenic LNG cargo to natural gas through onboard closed loop vaporization systems. SRVs are also equipped to odorize and meter gas for send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The SRVs would moor to the unloading buoys which connect through the hull of the vessels to specially designed turrets that would enable the vessel to weathervane or rotate in response to prevailing wind, wave, and current directions. When the vessels were not present, the buoys would be submerged on a special landing pad on the seabed, 60 to 70 feet below the sea surface. Each unloading buoy would connect through a 16-inch-diameter flexible riser and 36-inch-diameter flowline to a Y intersection and thence a 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending 42 miles to Port Manatee in Manatee County, Florida. The pipeline would connect with the Gulfstream Natural Gas System and the Tampa Electric Company (TECO) pipeline system. The 36-inch pipeline would make landfall on Port Manatee property, whence it would extend in a generally easterly direction to the first interconnection point with the Gulfstream System interconnection station site, which would occupy two acres. Up to 80 percent of the daily flow of gas (800 million cubic feet) would be delivered to the Gulfstream System. The remainder of the natural gas from the Port Dolphin would be transported by 14-inch pipeline to the TECO interconnection station, located 5.8 miles east of the Gulfstream interconnection station. Only SRVs would call on Port Dolphin. Offloading of an SRV would require four to eight days. Initially, the port would be capable of a natural gas throughput of 400 million square feet per day, with an eventual daily output of 1,200 million square feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of the high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Several million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. Pipeline construction would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos and the pipeline rights-of-way would traverse vegetated wildlife habitat, including coastal wetlands and inland wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080149, Draft EIS--389 pages, Appendices--441 pages, April 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Coastal Zones KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+DOLPHIN+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+ST.+PETERSBURG+BLOCKS+PB545%2C+PB589%2C+AND+PB590%2C+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OFF+THE+WESTERN+COAST+OF+FLORIDA+IN+GULF+OF+MEXICO.&rft.title=PORT+DOLPHIN+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+ST.+PETERSBURG+BLOCKS+PB545%2C+PB589%2C+AND+PB590%2C+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OFF+THE+WESTERN+COAST+OF+FLORIDA+IN+GULF+OF+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT DOLPHIN LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, ST. PETERSBURG BLOCKS PB545, PB589, AND PB590, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE WESTERN COAST OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - PORT DOLPHIN LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, ST. PETERSBURG BLOCKS PB545, PB589, AND PB590, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE WESTERN COAST OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO. AN - 36375142; 13383-080149_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) are proposed by Port Dolphin Energy LLC. The facility, to be known as Port Dolphin, would be located 28 miles off the west coast of Florida to the southwest of Tampa Bay and extend to 100 feet beneath the surface of the water of water. The port would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of three miles. Each unloading buoy would be permanently secured to eight mooring lines consisting of wire rope, chain, and buoyancy elements. Each mooring buoy would be attached to anchor points on the seabed; the anchor points would most likely consist of driven piles. The buoys would be designed to moor a specialized type of LNG vessel known as a shuttle and regasification vessel (SRV) with capacities of between 145,000 and 217,000 cubic meters. SRVs are equipped to vaporize cryogenic LNG cargo to natural gas through onboard closed loop vaporization systems. SRVs are also equipped to odorize and meter gas for send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The SRVs would moor to the unloading buoys which connect through the hull of the vessels to specially designed turrets that would enable the vessel to weathervane or rotate in response to prevailing wind, wave, and current directions. When the vessels were not present, the buoys would be submerged on a special landing pad on the seabed, 60 to 70 feet below the sea surface. Each unloading buoy would connect through a 16-inch-diameter flexible riser and 36-inch-diameter flowline to a Y intersection and thence a 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending 42 miles to Port Manatee in Manatee County, Florida. The pipeline would connect with the Gulfstream Natural Gas System and the Tampa Electric Company (TECO) pipeline system. The 36-inch pipeline would make landfall on Port Manatee property, whence it would extend in a generally easterly direction to the first interconnection point with the Gulfstream System interconnection station site, which would occupy two acres. Up to 80 percent of the daily flow of gas (800 million cubic feet) would be delivered to the Gulfstream System. The remainder of the natural gas from the Port Dolphin would be transported by 14-inch pipeline to the TECO interconnection station, located 5.8 miles east of the Gulfstream interconnection station. Only SRVs would call on Port Dolphin. Offloading of an SRV would require four to eight days. Initially, the port would be capable of a natural gas throughput of 400 million square feet per day, with an eventual daily output of 1,200 million square feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of the high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Several million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. Pipeline construction would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos and the pipeline rights-of-way would traverse vegetated wildlife habitat, including coastal wetlands and inland wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080149, Draft EIS--389 pages, Appendices--441 pages, April 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Coastal Zones KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+DOLPHIN+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+ST.+PETERSBURG+BLOCKS+PB545%2C+PB589%2C+AND+PB590%2C+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OFF+THE+WESTERN+COAST+OF+FLORIDA+IN+GULF+OF+MEXICO.&rft.title=PORT+DOLPHIN+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+ST.+PETERSBURG+BLOCKS+PB545%2C+PB589%2C+AND+PB590%2C+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OFF+THE+WESTERN+COAST+OF+FLORIDA+IN+GULF+OF+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT DOLPHIN LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, ST. PETERSBURG BLOCKS PB545, PB589, AND PB590, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE WESTERN COAST OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO. AN - 16390076; 13383 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in the federal waters of the outer continental shelf (OCS) are proposed by Port Dolphin Energy LLC. The facility, to be known as Port Dolphin, would be located 28 miles off the west coast of Florida to the southwest of Tampa Bay and extend to 100 feet beneath the surface of the water of water. The port would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of three miles. Each unloading buoy would be permanently secured to eight mooring lines consisting of wire rope, chain, and buoyancy elements. Each mooring buoy would be attached to anchor points on the seabed; the anchor points would most likely consist of driven piles. The buoys would be designed to moor a specialized type of LNG vessel known as a shuttle and regasification vessel (SRV) with capacities of between 145,000 and 217,000 cubic meters. SRVs are equipped to vaporize cryogenic LNG cargo to natural gas through onboard closed loop vaporization systems. SRVs are also equipped to odorize and meter gas for send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The SRVs would moor to the unloading buoys which connect through the hull of the vessels to specially designed turrets that would enable the vessel to weathervane or rotate in response to prevailing wind, wave, and current directions. When the vessels were not present, the buoys would be submerged on a special landing pad on the seabed, 60 to 70 feet below the sea surface. Each unloading buoy would connect through a 16-inch-diameter flexible riser and 36-inch-diameter flowline to a Y intersection and thence a 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending 42 miles to Port Manatee in Manatee County, Florida. The pipeline would connect with the Gulfstream Natural Gas System and the Tampa Electric Company (TECO) pipeline system. The 36-inch pipeline would make landfall on Port Manatee property, whence it would extend in a generally easterly direction to the first interconnection point with the Gulfstream System interconnection station site, which would occupy two acres. Up to 80 percent of the daily flow of gas (800 million cubic feet) would be delivered to the Gulfstream System. The remainder of the natural gas from the Port Dolphin would be transported by 14-inch pipeline to the TECO interconnection station, located 5.8 miles east of the Gulfstream interconnection station. Only SRVs would call on Port Dolphin. Offloading of an SRV would require four to eight days. Initially, the port would be capable of a natural gas throughput of 400 million square feet per day, with an eventual daily output of 1,200 million square feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two alternative deepwater port locations, both of which are off the coast of Florida; various alternative LNG transshipment technologies; and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help provide a reliable and timely supply of natural gas and to increase energy source diversity in the United States. The port would not interfere with international navigation or other reasonable uses of the high seas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Buoy anchoring and related seabed work and pipeline construction would result in disturbance of the benthic environment and creation of turbidity in the water column in the immediate areas. Operational activities would result in similar disturbances in the immediate area of the port as well as releases of high-saline water into the area. Use of seawater in the vaporization of LNG would involve returning the seawater, after treatment with various biocides, back into the ambient ocean. Several million gallons of seawater per day would pass through the vaporization system. Operation of the vaporization system would destroy entrained ichthyoplankton, fish eggs and larvae, and fish in the early stages of life. The port would mar visual aesthetics for commercial and recreational vessel users. Pipeline construction would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos and the pipeline rights-of-way would traverse vegetated wildlife habitat, including coastal wetlands and inland wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080149, Draft EIS--389 pages, Appendices--441 pages, April 11, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Coastal Zones KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety Analyses KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+DOLPHIN+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+ST.+PETERSBURG+BLOCKS+PB545%2C+PB589%2C+AND+PB590%2C+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OFF+THE+WESTERN+COAST+OF+FLORIDA+IN+GULF+OF+MEXICO.&rft.title=PORT+DOLPHIN+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+ST.+PETERSBURG+BLOCKS+PB545%2C+PB589%2C+AND+PB590%2C+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OFF+THE+WESTERN+COAST+OF+FLORIDA+IN+GULF+OF+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 71, DOVRE TOWNSHIP, KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36409947; 13373 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of one or more grade-separated bridge crossings of Trunk Highway 23 and US 71 in the Dovre Township of Kandiyohi County, Minnesota is proposed. The 3.5-mile study corridor extends from the Highway 294/Highway 23/71 divergence, a distance of 0.5 mile north to the Civic Center Drive interchange, to the divergence of Highway 23 and Highway 71 in the Dovre Township, northeast of the city of Willmar. Highway 23 is a principal northeast-southwest trunk highway serving as a diagonal route between Interstate 35 (I-35) at Sandstone and I-90 in Rock County. Highway 71 is a north-south component of the National Highway System connecting communities in west-central Minnesota, from International Falls to the Iowa border south of Jackson. Both of the highways, which are coterminous within the 3.5-mile study corridor near Willmar, connect citizens and communities to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. This draft EIS considers four freeway build alternatives and four alternatives addressing access to the freeway from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast, by which several private properties and users of Point Lake reach Highway 23/71. The freeway build alternatives would result in the closure of all at-grade access and the construction of either one or two interchanges. The two-interchange option would place interchanges at County Road (CR) 90 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25. The single-interchange option would place an interchange at County Road CR 90 and close at-grade access to Highway 23/71 at CSAH 25. To remedy the closure of access to Highway 23/71 from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast, the project would incorporate one of the following alternatives: 1) a two-lane collector road extending from Twenty-sixth Street to either Long Lake Road or CSAH 27 two-lane; 2) a two-lane collector road, including a tunnel section, extending from Twenty-sixth Street to CR 93 (Eagle Road North); or 3) a two-lane frontage road, with either a fill section or a bridge to allow the crossing of Point Lake, connecting Twenty-Six Street with Sixty-Sixth Avenue NE. In addition to the build alternatives, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. Other access management improvements would include street, driveway, and median closures. Connecting adjacent frontage roads and local roadway improvements would also be incorporated into the project. Depending on the pair of alternatives chosen, estimated cost of the project ranges from $22.9 million to $29.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By removing local street access from Highway 23/71, the project would improve operational efficiency of the facility, reducing congestion and the potential for vehicular collisions and improving air quality within the corridor. The interchange(s) and Twenty-sixth Street connector would ensure safe local access to the improved facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the 40.3 to 64.1 acres of land, including 11 to 20 acres of farmland, 3.15 to 5.8 acres of wetlands as well as parkland and recreational land. Highway development would also require the relocation of three to 11 residences and as many as seven businesses employing up to 38 workers. Utilities would also require relocation. Addition of impervious surface within the construction zones would result in higher peak flows at culvert crossings and affect water quality in Hawk Creek and Point, Eagle, Swan, and Skataas lakes. Several sensitive receptor sites would experience traffic generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080139, 156 pages and maps, April 10, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-08-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Lakes KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+AND+U.S.+HIGHWAY+71%2C+DOVRE+TOWNSHIP%2C+KANDIYOHI+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+AND+U.S.+HIGHWAY+71%2C+DOVRE+TOWNSHIP%2C+KANDIYOHI+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 71, DOVRE TOWNSHIP, KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 71, DOVRE TOWNSHIP, KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36387417; 13373-080139_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of one or more grade-separated bridge crossings of Trunk Highway 23 and US 71 in the Dovre Township of Kandiyohi County, Minnesota is proposed. The 3.5-mile study corridor extends from the Highway 294/Highway 23/71 divergence, a distance of 0.5 mile north to the Civic Center Drive interchange, to the divergence of Highway 23 and Highway 71 in the Dovre Township, northeast of the city of Willmar. Highway 23 is a principal northeast-southwest trunk highway serving as a diagonal route between Interstate 35 (I-35) at Sandstone and I-90 in Rock County. Highway 71 is a north-south component of the National Highway System connecting communities in west-central Minnesota, from International Falls to the Iowa border south of Jackson. Both of the highways, which are coterminous within the 3.5-mile study corridor near Willmar, connect citizens and communities to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. This draft EIS considers four freeway build alternatives and four alternatives addressing access to the freeway from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast, by which several private properties and users of Point Lake reach Highway 23/71. The freeway build alternatives would result in the closure of all at-grade access and the construction of either one or two interchanges. The two-interchange option would place interchanges at County Road (CR) 90 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25. The single-interchange option would place an interchange at County Road CR 90 and close at-grade access to Highway 23/71 at CSAH 25. To remedy the closure of access to Highway 23/71 from Twenty-sixth Street Northeast, the project would incorporate one of the following alternatives: 1) a two-lane collector road extending from Twenty-sixth Street to either Long Lake Road or CSAH 27 two-lane; 2) a two-lane collector road, including a tunnel section, extending from Twenty-sixth Street to CR 93 (Eagle Road North); or 3) a two-lane frontage road, with either a fill section or a bridge to allow the crossing of Point Lake, connecting Twenty-Six Street with Sixty-Sixth Avenue NE. In addition to the build alternatives, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. Other access management improvements would include street, driveway, and median closures. Connecting adjacent frontage roads and local roadway improvements would also be incorporated into the project. Depending on the pair of alternatives chosen, estimated cost of the project ranges from $22.9 million to $29.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By removing local street access from Highway 23/71, the project would improve operational efficiency of the facility, reducing congestion and the potential for vehicular collisions and improving air quality within the corridor. The interchange(s) and Twenty-sixth Street connector would ensure safe local access to the improved facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the 40.3 to 64.1 acres of land, including 11 to 20 acres of farmland, 3.15 to 5.8 acres of wetlands as well as parkland and recreational land. Highway development would also require the relocation of three to 11 residences and as many as seven businesses employing up to 38 workers. Utilities would also require relocation. Addition of impervious surface within the construction zones would result in higher peak flows at culvert crossings and affect water quality in Hawk Creek and Point, Eagle, Swan, and Skataas lakes. Several sensitive receptor sites would experience traffic generated noise in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080139, 156 pages and maps, April 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-08-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Lakes KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+AND+U.S.+HIGHWAY+71%2C+DOVRE+TOWNSHIP%2C+KANDIYOHI+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+AND+U.S.+HIGHWAY+71%2C+DOVRE+TOWNSHIP%2C+KANDIYOHI+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 36389565; 13363-080129_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton city interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alternative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives met the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersections would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on t he 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alternative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080129, 347 pages and maps, April 2, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 36388307; 13363-080129_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton city interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alternative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives met the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersections would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on t he 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alternative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080129, 347 pages and maps, April 2, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - LAYTON INTERCHANGE, LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 36387409; 13363-080129_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement or replacement of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Layton city interchange in Davis County, Ohio is proposed. Layton City is located 15 miles south of Ogden and 25 miles north of Salt Lake City. Continuing residential development west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Layton City, Kaysville, and Syracuse, bringing with it increasing demand for highway infrastructure. The at-grade crossing now used by persons west of the UPRR presents a significant safety hazard. This draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, Transportation System management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative, a transit alternative, and five interchange construction alternatives. However, only two of the build alternatives met the purpose and need associated with the proposal. Alternative 2, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would provide for a new interchange at milepost 330, a new five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street (750 South connection), and a grade-separated overpass of the UPRR as part of the new interchange. Main Street would be widened to three lanes in each direction with turning lanes at its intersection with Gentile Street, the at-grade UPRR crossing would be closed and removed, and signalized intersections would be established at Flint Street, Main Street, and Fort Land on t he 750 South connection. The existing partial Layton City I-15 interchange would be removed. . Alternative 4 would widen Gentile Street and improve the existing partial I-15 interchange. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would accommodate current and projected traffic demand and operations at the interchange site, provide unrestricted access to and from I-15 across the UPRR to the developing area of west Layton, and provide adequate transportation capacity west of I-15 to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion by providing as near to level-of-service D as possible on Gentile Street. Anticipated commercial growth on Main Street could be accelerated due to improved access to the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 2 would result in the displacement of 11 acres of land, including one acre of wetlands, and five residences and 11 commercial units. Three properties potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be negatively affected. Noise levels along I-15 and the 750 South connection would increase. Increased impervious surface within the affected corridors would increase stormwater runoff from four cubic feet per second to 17 cubic feet per second. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080129, 347 pages and maps, April 2, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=LAYTON+INTERCHANGE%2C+LAYTON+CITY%2C+DAVIS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Directivity in NGA earthquake ground motions; analysis using isochrone theory AN - 50588279; 2008-115995 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Spudich, Paul AU - Chiou, B S J AU - Rowe, Charlotte A Y1 - 2008/04// PY - 2008 DA - April 2008 SP - 287 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 79 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - isochrone theory KW - geologic hazards KW - hanging wall KW - earthquake prediction KW - seismic risk KW - ground motion KW - risk assessment KW - tectonics KW - foot wall KW - earthquakes KW - seismotectonics KW - faults KW - 19:Seismology KW - 16:Structural geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50588279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Directivity+in+NGA+earthquake+ground+motions%3B+analysis+using+isochrone+theory&rft.au=Spudich%2C+Paul%3BChiou%2C+B+S+J%3BRowe%2C+Charlotte+A&rft.aulast=Spudich&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2008-04-01&rft.volume=79&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=287&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/10.1785%2Fgssrl.79.2.243 L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Seismological Society of America 2008 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - earthquake prediction; earthquakes; faults; foot wall; geologic hazards; ground motion; hanging wall; isochrone theory; risk assessment; seismic risk; seismotectonics; tectonics DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.79.2.243 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36411483; 13359 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane freeway from Interstate 26 (I-26)to US 19-23-70, including a new I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange, in Asheville and Buncombe County, North Carolina is proposed. The project, which is commonly referred to as the I-26 Connector, would improve the existing connection between the Port of Charleston, South Carolina and the mountains of western North Carolina. Prior to 2003, I-26 terminated at the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange southwest of Asheville. In 203, a new section of I-26 was completed north of Asheville from Mars Hill northward to the Tennessee state line, leaving a 20-mile gap in the route. Through Asheville to the north, I-26 traffic is routed along I-240 and US 19-23, connecting to the new section of I-26 and eventually to I-81 in Tennessee. The proposed I-26 Connector would improve the existing I-26, I-240, and US 19-23-70 corridors from south of the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange to the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue west of the French Broad River. At the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue, a northward freeway on new location would be constructed that would cross he French Broad River and merge into existing US 19-23-70. The project has been divided into three segments. Four build alternatives and a baseline No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Only one alternative is under consideration for Section A, which extends along existing I-240 from just north of I-40 to just south of the I-240/US 17-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange. Section B, for which three alternatives have been developed, begins at the northern end of Section A and continues northward I-240 through the US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange, then splits on a new locations and continues across the French Broad River before terminating just north of the State Route 1781 (Broadway) interchange with US 19-23-70. Section C consists of the area surrounding the I-26/I-40/I-2400 interchange; this section, for which four alternatives have been developed was created from a portion of Section B late in the design phase. Estimated costs of Section A rights-of-way acquisition and construction costs are estimated at $124.2 million. Depending on the alternatives chosen, Section B costs and Section C costs are estimated to range from $215.6 million to $363.4 million and $98.1 million to $256.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Connector would provide a link between I-26 south of Asheville and US 19-23 north of Asheville, rendering I-26 a complete, unitary east-west route through the Carolinas to Kingsport, Tennessee. Additional capacity added to I-240 would respond to increasing traffic volumes that have substantially reduced the level of service along the corridor west of Asheville. Improved engineering and metrics would ameliorate conditions along currently accident-prone segments of the freeway. Deficiencies in the affected interstates would be eliminated, bringing the corridors up to federal interstate standards. The additional bridge across the French Broad River would reduce delays now experienced by drivers needing to cross the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternatives selected, rights-of-way requirements for the project would result in the displacement of 79 residences and one church along Section A, 37 to 61 residences along Section B, and five to 15 residences along Section C. Business displacements would number 14 along Section A, 17 to 55 along Section B, and up to one along Section C. The highway would traverse eight to 21 streams, resulting in the relocation of 1,751 to 4,976 linear feet of channel. The highway would traverse seven to 11 wetlands, displacing two to three acres in all. Two small ponds would be affected. Six to seven historically significant properties would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080125, Draft EIS--399 pages, Appendices--391 pages, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-05-07-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36411483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 8 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36394081; 13361-080127_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36394081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 4 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36390230; 13361-080127_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36390230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 6 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36388240; 13361-080127_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36388240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36387445; 13359-080125_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane freeway from Interstate 26 (I-26)to US 19-23-70, including a new I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange, in Asheville and Buncombe County, North Carolina is proposed. The project, which is commonly referred to as the I-26 Connector, would improve the existing connection between the Port of Charleston, South Carolina and the mountains of western North Carolina. Prior to 2003, I-26 terminated at the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange southwest of Asheville. In 203, a new section of I-26 was completed north of Asheville from Mars Hill northward to the Tennessee state line, leaving a 20-mile gap in the route. Through Asheville to the north, I-26 traffic is routed along I-240 and US 19-23, connecting to the new section of I-26 and eventually to I-81 in Tennessee. The proposed I-26 Connector would improve the existing I-26, I-240, and US 19-23-70 corridors from south of the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange to the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue west of the French Broad River. At the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue, a northward freeway on new location would be constructed that would cross he French Broad River and merge into existing US 19-23-70. The project has been divided into three segments. Four build alternatives and a baseline No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Only one alternative is under consideration for Section A, which extends along existing I-240 from just north of I-40 to just south of the I-240/US 17-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange. Section B, for which three alternatives have been developed, begins at the northern end of Section A and continues northward I-240 through the US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange, then splits on a new locations and continues across the French Broad River before terminating just north of the State Route 1781 (Broadway) interchange with US 19-23-70. Section C consists of the area surrounding the I-26/I-40/I-2400 interchange; this section, for which four alternatives have been developed was created from a portion of Section B late in the design phase. Estimated costs of Section A rights-of-way acquisition and construction costs are estimated at $124.2 million. Depending on the alternatives chosen, Section B costs and Section C costs are estimated to range from $215.6 million to $363.4 million and $98.1 million to $256.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Connector would provide a link between I-26 south of Asheville and US 19-23 north of Asheville, rendering I-26 a complete, unitary east-west route through the Carolinas to Kingsport, Tennessee. Additional capacity added to I-240 would respond to increasing traffic volumes that have substantially reduced the level of service along the corridor west of Asheville. Improved engineering and metrics would ameliorate conditions along currently accident-prone segments of the freeway. Deficiencies in the affected interstates would be eliminated, bringing the corridors up to federal interstate standards. The additional bridge across the French Broad River would reduce delays now experienced by drivers needing to cross the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternatives selected, rights-of-way requirements for the project would result in the displacement of 79 residences and one church along Section A, 37 to 61 residences along Section B, and five to 15 residences along Section C. Business displacements would number 14 along Section A, 17 to 55 along Section B, and up to one along Section C. The highway would traverse eight to 21 streams, resulting in the relocation of 1,751 to 4,976 linear feet of channel. The highway would traverse seven to 11 wetlands, displacing two to three acres in all. Two small ponds would be affected. Six to seven historically significant properties would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080125, Draft EIS--399 pages, Appendices--391 pages, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-05-07-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 2 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36387245; 13361-080127_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36387245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36387237; 13359-080125_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane freeway from Interstate 26 (I-26)to US 19-23-70, including a new I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange, in Asheville and Buncombe County, North Carolina is proposed. The project, which is commonly referred to as the I-26 Connector, would improve the existing connection between the Port of Charleston, South Carolina and the mountains of western North Carolina. Prior to 2003, I-26 terminated at the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange southwest of Asheville. In 203, a new section of I-26 was completed north of Asheville from Mars Hill northward to the Tennessee state line, leaving a 20-mile gap in the route. Through Asheville to the north, I-26 traffic is routed along I-240 and US 19-23, connecting to the new section of I-26 and eventually to I-81 in Tennessee. The proposed I-26 Connector would improve the existing I-26, I-240, and US 19-23-70 corridors from south of the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange to the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue west of the French Broad River. At the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue, a northward freeway on new location would be constructed that would cross he French Broad River and merge into existing US 19-23-70. The project has been divided into three segments. Four build alternatives and a baseline No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Only one alternative is under consideration for Section A, which extends along existing I-240 from just north of I-40 to just south of the I-240/US 17-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange. Section B, for which three alternatives have been developed, begins at the northern end of Section A and continues northward I-240 through the US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange, then splits on a new locations and continues across the French Broad River before terminating just north of the State Route 1781 (Broadway) interchange with US 19-23-70. Section C consists of the area surrounding the I-26/I-40/I-2400 interchange; this section, for which four alternatives have been developed was created from a portion of Section B late in the design phase. Estimated costs of Section A rights-of-way acquisition and construction costs are estimated at $124.2 million. Depending on the alternatives chosen, Section B costs and Section C costs are estimated to range from $215.6 million to $363.4 million and $98.1 million to $256.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Connector would provide a link between I-26 south of Asheville and US 19-23 north of Asheville, rendering I-26 a complete, unitary east-west route through the Carolinas to Kingsport, Tennessee. Additional capacity added to I-240 would respond to increasing traffic volumes that have substantially reduced the level of service along the corridor west of Asheville. Improved engineering and metrics would ameliorate conditions along currently accident-prone segments of the freeway. Deficiencies in the affected interstates would be eliminated, bringing the corridors up to federal interstate standards. The additional bridge across the French Broad River would reduce delays now experienced by drivers needing to cross the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternatives selected, rights-of-way requirements for the project would result in the displacement of 79 residences and one church along Section A, 37 to 61 residences along Section B, and five to 15 residences along Section C. Business displacements would number 14 along Section A, 17 to 55 along Section B, and up to one along Section C. The highway would traverse eight to 21 streams, resulting in the relocation of 1,751 to 4,976 linear feet of channel. The highway would traverse seven to 11 wetlands, displacing two to three acres in all. Two small ponds would be affected. Six to seven historically significant properties would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080125, Draft EIS--399 pages, Appendices--391 pages, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-05-07-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 1 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36387163; 13361-080127_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36387163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 9 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36382161; 13361-080127_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36382161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 7 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36382097; 13361-080127_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36382097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36380270; 13359-080125_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane freeway from Interstate 26 (I-26)to US 19-23-70, including a new I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange, in Asheville and Buncombe County, North Carolina is proposed. The project, which is commonly referred to as the I-26 Connector, would improve the existing connection between the Port of Charleston, South Carolina and the mountains of western North Carolina. Prior to 2003, I-26 terminated at the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange southwest of Asheville. In 203, a new section of I-26 was completed north of Asheville from Mars Hill northward to the Tennessee state line, leaving a 20-mile gap in the route. Through Asheville to the north, I-26 traffic is routed along I-240 and US 19-23, connecting to the new section of I-26 and eventually to I-81 in Tennessee. The proposed I-26 Connector would improve the existing I-26, I-240, and US 19-23-70 corridors from south of the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange to the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue west of the French Broad River. At the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue, a northward freeway on new location would be constructed that would cross he French Broad River and merge into existing US 19-23-70. The project has been divided into three segments. Four build alternatives and a baseline No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Only one alternative is under consideration for Section A, which extends along existing I-240 from just north of I-40 to just south of the I-240/US 17-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange. Section B, for which three alternatives have been developed, begins at the northern end of Section A and continues northward I-240 through the US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange, then splits on a new locations and continues across the French Broad River before terminating just north of the State Route 1781 (Broadway) interchange with US 19-23-70. Section C consists of the area surrounding the I-26/I-40/I-2400 interchange; this section, for which four alternatives have been developed was created from a portion of Section B late in the design phase. Estimated costs of Section A rights-of-way acquisition and construction costs are estimated at $124.2 million. Depending on the alternatives chosen, Section B costs and Section C costs are estimated to range from $215.6 million to $363.4 million and $98.1 million to $256.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Connector would provide a link between I-26 south of Asheville and US 19-23 north of Asheville, rendering I-26 a complete, unitary east-west route through the Carolinas to Kingsport, Tennessee. Additional capacity added to I-240 would respond to increasing traffic volumes that have substantially reduced the level of service along the corridor west of Asheville. Improved engineering and metrics would ameliorate conditions along currently accident-prone segments of the freeway. Deficiencies in the affected interstates would be eliminated, bringing the corridors up to federal interstate standards. The additional bridge across the French Broad River would reduce delays now experienced by drivers needing to cross the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternatives selected, rights-of-way requirements for the project would result in the displacement of 79 residences and one church along Section A, 37 to 61 residences along Section B, and five to 15 residences along Section C. Business displacements would number 14 along Section A, 17 to 55 along Section B, and up to one along Section C. The highway would traverse eight to 21 streams, resulting in the relocation of 1,751 to 4,976 linear feet of channel. The highway would traverse seven to 11 wetlands, displacing two to three acres in all. Two small ponds would be affected. Six to seven historically significant properties would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080125, Draft EIS--399 pages, Appendices--391 pages, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-05-07-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 3 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36379159; 13361-080127_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36379159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36378651; 13359-080125_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane freeway from Interstate 26 (I-26)to US 19-23-70, including a new I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange, in Asheville and Buncombe County, North Carolina is proposed. The project, which is commonly referred to as the I-26 Connector, would improve the existing connection between the Port of Charleston, South Carolina and the mountains of western North Carolina. Prior to 2003, I-26 terminated at the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange southwest of Asheville. In 203, a new section of I-26 was completed north of Asheville from Mars Hill northward to the Tennessee state line, leaving a 20-mile gap in the route. Through Asheville to the north, I-26 traffic is routed along I-240 and US 19-23, connecting to the new section of I-26 and eventually to I-81 in Tennessee. The proposed I-26 Connector would improve the existing I-26, I-240, and US 19-23-70 corridors from south of the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange to the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue west of the French Broad River. At the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue, a northward freeway on new location would be constructed that would cross he French Broad River and merge into existing US 19-23-70. The project has been divided into three segments. Four build alternatives and a baseline No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Only one alternative is under consideration for Section A, which extends along existing I-240 from just north of I-40 to just south of the I-240/US 17-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange. Section B, for which three alternatives have been developed, begins at the northern end of Section A and continues northward I-240 through the US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange, then splits on a new locations and continues across the French Broad River before terminating just north of the State Route 1781 (Broadway) interchange with US 19-23-70. Section C consists of the area surrounding the I-26/I-40/I-2400 interchange; this section, for which four alternatives have been developed was created from a portion of Section B late in the design phase. Estimated costs of Section A rights-of-way acquisition and construction costs are estimated at $124.2 million. Depending on the alternatives chosen, Section B costs and Section C costs are estimated to range from $215.6 million to $363.4 million and $98.1 million to $256.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Connector would provide a link between I-26 south of Asheville and US 19-23 north of Asheville, rendering I-26 a complete, unitary east-west route through the Carolinas to Kingsport, Tennessee. Additional capacity added to I-240 would respond to increasing traffic volumes that have substantially reduced the level of service along the corridor west of Asheville. Improved engineering and metrics would ameliorate conditions along currently accident-prone segments of the freeway. Deficiencies in the affected interstates would be eliminated, bringing the corridors up to federal interstate standards. The additional bridge across the French Broad River would reduce delays now experienced by drivers needing to cross the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternatives selected, rights-of-way requirements for the project would result in the displacement of 79 residences and one church along Section A, 37 to 61 residences along Section B, and five to 15 residences along Section C. Business displacements would number 14 along Section A, 17 to 55 along Section B, and up to one along Section C. The highway would traverse eight to 21 streams, resulting in the relocation of 1,751 to 4,976 linear feet of channel. The highway would traverse seven to 11 wetlands, displacing two to three acres in all. Two small ponds would be affected. Six to seven historically significant properties would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080125, Draft EIS--399 pages, Appendices--391 pages, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-05-07-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - I-26 CONNECTOR, I-40 TO US-19-23-70 NORTH OF ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36378589; 13359-080125_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane freeway from Interstate 26 (I-26)to US 19-23-70, including a new I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange, in Asheville and Buncombe County, North Carolina is proposed. The project, which is commonly referred to as the I-26 Connector, would improve the existing connection between the Port of Charleston, South Carolina and the mountains of western North Carolina. Prior to 2003, I-26 terminated at the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange southwest of Asheville. In 203, a new section of I-26 was completed north of Asheville from Mars Hill northward to the Tennessee state line, leaving a 20-mile gap in the route. Through Asheville to the north, I-26 traffic is routed along I-240 and US 19-23, connecting to the new section of I-26 and eventually to I-81 in Tennessee. The proposed I-26 Connector would improve the existing I-26, I-240, and US 19-23-70 corridors from south of the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange to the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue west of the French Broad River. At the I-240 interchange with US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue, a northward freeway on new location would be constructed that would cross he French Broad River and merge into existing US 19-23-70. The project has been divided into three segments. Four build alternatives and a baseline No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Only one alternative is under consideration for Section A, which extends along existing I-240 from just north of I-40 to just south of the I-240/US 17-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange. Section B, for which three alternatives have been developed, begins at the northern end of Section A and continues northward I-240 through the US 19-23-74A/Patton Avenue interchange, then splits on a new locations and continues across the French Broad River before terminating just north of the State Route 1781 (Broadway) interchange with US 19-23-70. Section C consists of the area surrounding the I-26/I-40/I-2400 interchange; this section, for which four alternatives have been developed was created from a portion of Section B late in the design phase. Estimated costs of Section A rights-of-way acquisition and construction costs are estimated at $124.2 million. Depending on the alternatives chosen, Section B costs and Section C costs are estimated to range from $215.6 million to $363.4 million and $98.1 million to $256.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Connector would provide a link between I-26 south of Asheville and US 19-23 north of Asheville, rendering I-26 a complete, unitary east-west route through the Carolinas to Kingsport, Tennessee. Additional capacity added to I-240 would respond to increasing traffic volumes that have substantially reduced the level of service along the corridor west of Asheville. Improved engineering and metrics would ameliorate conditions along currently accident-prone segments of the freeway. Deficiencies in the affected interstates would be eliminated, bringing the corridors up to federal interstate standards. The additional bridge across the French Broad River would reduce delays now experienced by drivers needing to cross the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternatives selected, rights-of-way requirements for the project would result in the displacement of 79 residences and one church along Section A, 37 to 61 residences along Section B, and five to 15 residences along Section C. Business displacements would number 14 along Section A, 17 to 55 along Section B, and up to one along Section C. The highway would traverse eight to 21 streams, resulting in the relocation of 1,751 to 4,976 linear feet of channel. The highway would traverse seven to 11 wetlands, displacing two to three acres in all. Two small ponds would be affected. Six to seven historically significant properties would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080125, Draft EIS--399 pages, Appendices--391 pages, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-05-07-D KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=I-26+CONNECTOR%2C+I-40+TO+US-19-23-70+NORTH+OF+ASHEVILLE%2C+BUNCOMBE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). [Part 5 of 9] T2 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 36375019; 13361-080127_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36375019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 93, NINEPIPE/RONAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1996). AN - 16388274; 13361 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 11.2-mile segment of US Highway 93 (US 93) from Dublin Gulch Road/Red Horn Road through the city of Ronan to Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road in Lake County, Montana is proposed. This draft supplemental EIS provides information necessary to supplement the final EIS of June 1996 on the improvement of a 56.3 mile segment of US 93 from Evaro through Polson in Lake and Missoula counties. The high rate of population growth and increased tourism throughout western Montana are sources of growth in traffic on US 93. The highway is important to safety, social well-being, and the economy. US 93 is the major north-south transportation route in western Montana. It provides interstate, regional, and local access to natural resources-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, and recreation. The existing roadway has various geometric features that do not meet current standards for safety and design. Existing level of service is poor, and design capacity will be exceeded by the year 2015. Accident numbers per mile are substantially higher than statewide averages. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 10 widening alternatives for the rural portion of the project and a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives for the urban segment. The rural widening alternatives range from minor widening and improvement of the existing two-lane with a cross-section of 40 feet to widening and improvement of the facility to provide a four-lane roadway cross-section of 112 feet. The urban action alternatives range from improving the roadway within the existing rights-of-way to widening to provision of a split couplet with southbound lanes relocated to an adjacent street. The preferred alternative for the rural segment (Rural 3) would provide a two-lane roadway with some sections of auxiliary lands and four-lane divided highway. Left-turn lanes and passing lanes and wildlife crossing structures would be provided as appropriate. The preferred alternative for the urban segment (Ronan 4) would provide a couplet, with a two-lane, one-way northbound roadway on existing US 93 and a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway on First Avenue Southwest. Transitional sections of four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane would be necessary south of the couplet where the roadway would connect to the selected rural lane configuration and north of the couplet to a four-lane divided section between Old Highway 93 and the Baptiste Road/Spring Creek Road intersection. Costs of the preferred rural and urban alternatives are estimated at $65.0 million and $21 million, respectively, in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the facility would improve highway capacity and safety. Carbon monoxide emissions would decrease throughout the project corridor, and particulate matter emissions would be reduced. Wildlife crossings would be improve the safety and efficiency of migration routes. Accidents on the rural section would decline by 20 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rural alternatives would require displacement of one to two residences and two to four businesses and 3.3 to 26.6 acres of recreational land and wildlife habitat, realignment of 12 mainline culverts and eight canals, possible acquisition of a small portion of an historic stagecoach route, displacement 15.9 to 41.2 acres of wetlands, further visual intrusion upon area aesthetics. The preferred rural alternative would require the acquisition of 42 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing one residence and two businesses. Urban alternatives would require acquisition of 2.7 to 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displacement of one to five businesses and up to seven residences. The preferred urban alternative would require acquisition of 12 acres of new rights-of-way and displace seven to nine residences, two businesses, and a tribal health clinic. 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 supplement to the final EIS, see 06-0607D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0140D, Volume 19, Number 2 and 96-0272F, Volume 20, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080127, Final EIS--669 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, March 31, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-95-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/16388274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&rft.title=US+93%2C+NINEPIPE%2FRONAN+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1996%29.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 36394409; 13355-080121_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 37.6 miles of highway along Interstate 94 (I-94), I-43, I-894, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 119 (Airport Spur) from the I-94/US 41 interchange to Howard Avenue in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin and Lake County, Illinois is proposed. The I-94 north-south freeway corridor includes I-94 from Howard Avenue south to the I-94/US 41 interchange just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, I-894 from Mitchell interchange west to Thirty-fifth Street, and STH 119. The freeway corridor is characterized by deteriorating pavement, safety drawbacks, and design deficiencies, including left-hand entrances and exits and sharp curves. At time passes and traffic volumes increase, safety, pavement conditions, and operations within the corridor will continue to deteriorate. Development and population growth in the communities served by the corridor are expected to result in traffic volume increases of 20 to 30 percent by 2035. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, a transportation demand management alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and four build alternatives. Build alternatives include: 1) spot improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address those safety issues that can be addressed without acquiring any new rights-of-way; 2) safety and design improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address all crucial safety issues even if new rights-of-way are required; 3) safety and design improvements and expansion of roadway carrying capacity by adding one new general purpose travel lane in each direction; and 4) provision of a new interchange at I-94 and Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at Twenty-seventh Street to replace the existing half interchange. Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative; the alternative has a estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would improve safety and traffic operations, accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service, maintain a key link within the state and regional transportation networks, and replace deteriorating pavement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential units, but very few. In addition, the project would displace of farmland, including entire farms, and wetlands. The project would traverse seven floodplains, though these are already traversed by the existing facilities. The project would also traverse habitat of the state protected Butler's garter snake, seaside crowfoot, alkali bulrush, bluestem goldenrod, reflexed trillium, and smooth black-haw. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 831 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0494D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080121, 678 pages and maps, March 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36394409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 36388438; 13355-080121_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 37.6 miles of highway along Interstate 94 (I-94), I-43, I-894, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 119 (Airport Spur) from the I-94/US 41 interchange to Howard Avenue in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin and Lake County, Illinois is proposed. The I-94 north-south freeway corridor includes I-94 from Howard Avenue south to the I-94/US 41 interchange just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, I-894 from Mitchell interchange west to Thirty-fifth Street, and STH 119. The freeway corridor is characterized by deteriorating pavement, safety drawbacks, and design deficiencies, including left-hand entrances and exits and sharp curves. At time passes and traffic volumes increase, safety, pavement conditions, and operations within the corridor will continue to deteriorate. Development and population growth in the communities served by the corridor are expected to result in traffic volume increases of 20 to 30 percent by 2035. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, a transportation demand management alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and four build alternatives. Build alternatives include: 1) spot improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address those safety issues that can be addressed without acquiring any new rights-of-way; 2) safety and design improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address all crucial safety issues even if new rights-of-way are required; 3) safety and design improvements and expansion of roadway carrying capacity by adding one new general purpose travel lane in each direction; and 4) provision of a new interchange at I-94 and Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at Twenty-seventh Street to replace the existing half interchange. Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative; the alternative has a estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would improve safety and traffic operations, accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service, maintain a key link within the state and regional transportation networks, and replace deteriorating pavement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential units, but very few. In addition, the project would displace of farmland, including entire farms, and wetlands. The project would traverse seven floodplains, though these are already traversed by the existing facilities. The project would also traverse habitat of the state protected Butler's garter snake, seaside crowfoot, alkali bulrush, bluestem goldenrod, reflexed trillium, and smooth black-haw. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 831 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0494D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080121, 678 pages and maps, March 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36388438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 36388356; 13355-080121_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 37.6 miles of highway along Interstate 94 (I-94), I-43, I-894, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 119 (Airport Spur) from the I-94/US 41 interchange to Howard Avenue in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin and Lake County, Illinois is proposed. The I-94 north-south freeway corridor includes I-94 from Howard Avenue south to the I-94/US 41 interchange just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, I-894 from Mitchell interchange west to Thirty-fifth Street, and STH 119. The freeway corridor is characterized by deteriorating pavement, safety drawbacks, and design deficiencies, including left-hand entrances and exits and sharp curves. At time passes and traffic volumes increase, safety, pavement conditions, and operations within the corridor will continue to deteriorate. Development and population growth in the communities served by the corridor are expected to result in traffic volume increases of 20 to 30 percent by 2035. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, a transportation demand management alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and four build alternatives. Build alternatives include: 1) spot improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address those safety issues that can be addressed without acquiring any new rights-of-way; 2) safety and design improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address all crucial safety issues even if new rights-of-way are required; 3) safety and design improvements and expansion of roadway carrying capacity by adding one new general purpose travel lane in each direction; and 4) provision of a new interchange at I-94 and Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at Twenty-seventh Street to replace the existing half interchange. Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative; the alternative has a estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would improve safety and traffic operations, accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service, maintain a key link within the state and regional transportation networks, and replace deteriorating pavement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential units, but very few. In addition, the project would displace of farmland, including entire farms, and wetlands. The project would traverse seven floodplains, though these are already traversed by the existing facilities. The project would also traverse habitat of the state protected Butler's garter snake, seaside crowfoot, alkali bulrush, bluestem goldenrod, reflexed trillium, and smooth black-haw. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 831 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0494D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080121, 678 pages and maps, March 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36388356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 36387713; 13355-080121_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 37.6 miles of highway along Interstate 94 (I-94), I-43, I-894, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 119 (Airport Spur) from the I-94/US 41 interchange to Howard Avenue in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin and Lake County, Illinois is proposed. The I-94 north-south freeway corridor includes I-94 from Howard Avenue south to the I-94/US 41 interchange just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, I-894 from Mitchell interchange west to Thirty-fifth Street, and STH 119. The freeway corridor is characterized by deteriorating pavement, safety drawbacks, and design deficiencies, including left-hand entrances and exits and sharp curves. At time passes and traffic volumes increase, safety, pavement conditions, and operations within the corridor will continue to deteriorate. Development and population growth in the communities served by the corridor are expected to result in traffic volume increases of 20 to 30 percent by 2035. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, a transportation demand management alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and four build alternatives. Build alternatives include: 1) spot improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address those safety issues that can be addressed without acquiring any new rights-of-way; 2) safety and design improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address all crucial safety issues even if new rights-of-way are required; 3) safety and design improvements and expansion of roadway carrying capacity by adding one new general purpose travel lane in each direction; and 4) provision of a new interchange at I-94 and Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at Twenty-seventh Street to replace the existing half interchange. Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative; the alternative has a estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would improve safety and traffic operations, accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service, maintain a key link within the state and regional transportation networks, and replace deteriorating pavement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential units, but very few. In addition, the project would displace of farmland, including entire farms, and wetlands. The project would traverse seven floodplains, though these are already traversed by the existing facilities. The project would also traverse habitat of the state protected Butler's garter snake, seaside crowfoot, alkali bulrush, bluestem goldenrod, reflexed trillium, and smooth black-haw. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 831 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0494D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080121, 678 pages and maps, March 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36387713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 36382231; 13355-080121_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 37.6 miles of highway along Interstate 94 (I-94), I-43, I-894, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 119 (Airport Spur) from the I-94/US 41 interchange to Howard Avenue in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin and Lake County, Illinois is proposed. The I-94 north-south freeway corridor includes I-94 from Howard Avenue south to the I-94/US 41 interchange just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, I-894 from Mitchell interchange west to Thirty-fifth Street, and STH 119. The freeway corridor is characterized by deteriorating pavement, safety drawbacks, and design deficiencies, including left-hand entrances and exits and sharp curves. At time passes and traffic volumes increase, safety, pavement conditions, and operations within the corridor will continue to deteriorate. Development and population growth in the communities served by the corridor are expected to result in traffic volume increases of 20 to 30 percent by 2035. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, a transportation demand management alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and four build alternatives. Build alternatives include: 1) spot improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address those safety issues that can be addressed without acquiring any new rights-of-way; 2) safety and design improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address all crucial safety issues even if new rights-of-way are required; 3) safety and design improvements and expansion of roadway carrying capacity by adding one new general purpose travel lane in each direction; and 4) provision of a new interchange at I-94 and Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at Twenty-seventh Street to replace the existing half interchange. Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative; the alternative has a estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would improve safety and traffic operations, accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service, maintain a key link within the state and regional transportation networks, and replace deteriorating pavement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential units, but very few. In addition, the project would displace of farmland, including entire farms, and wetlands. The project would traverse seven floodplains, though these are already traversed by the existing facilities. The project would also traverse habitat of the state protected Butler's garter snake, seaside crowfoot, alkali bulrush, bluestem goldenrod, reflexed trillium, and smooth black-haw. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 831 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0494D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080121, 678 pages and maps, March 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36382231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 36380768; 13355-080121_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 37.6 miles of highway along Interstate 94 (I-94), I-43, I-894, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 119 (Airport Spur) from the I-94/US 41 interchange to Howard Avenue in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin and Lake County, Illinois is proposed. The I-94 north-south freeway corridor includes I-94 from Howard Avenue south to the I-94/US 41 interchange just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, I-894 from Mitchell interchange west to Thirty-fifth Street, and STH 119. The freeway corridor is characterized by deteriorating pavement, safety drawbacks, and design deficiencies, including left-hand entrances and exits and sharp curves. At time passes and traffic volumes increase, safety, pavement conditions, and operations within the corridor will continue to deteriorate. Development and population growth in the communities served by the corridor are expected to result in traffic volume increases of 20 to 30 percent by 2035. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, a transportation demand management alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and four build alternatives. Build alternatives include: 1) spot improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address those safety issues that can be addressed without acquiring any new rights-of-way; 2) safety and design improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address all crucial safety issues even if new rights-of-way are required; 3) safety and design improvements and expansion of roadway carrying capacity by adding one new general purpose travel lane in each direction; and 4) provision of a new interchange at I-94 and Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at Twenty-seventh Street to replace the existing half interchange. Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative; the alternative has a estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would improve safety and traffic operations, accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service, maintain a key link within the state and regional transportation networks, and replace deteriorating pavement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential units, but very few. In addition, the project would displace of farmland, including entire farms, and wetlands. The project would traverse seven floodplains, though these are already traversed by the existing facilities. The project would also traverse habitat of the state protected Butler's garter snake, seaside crowfoot, alkali bulrush, bluestem goldenrod, reflexed trillium, and smooth black-haw. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 831 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0494D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080121, 678 pages and maps, March 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36380768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 36378522; 13355-080121_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 37.6 miles of highway along Interstate 94 (I-94), I-43, I-894, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 119 (Airport Spur) from the I-94/US 41 interchange to Howard Avenue in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin and Lake County, Illinois is proposed. The I-94 north-south freeway corridor includes I-94 from Howard Avenue south to the I-94/US 41 interchange just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, I-894 from Mitchell interchange west to Thirty-fifth Street, and STH 119. The freeway corridor is characterized by deteriorating pavement, safety drawbacks, and design deficiencies, including left-hand entrances and exits and sharp curves. At time passes and traffic volumes increase, safety, pavement conditions, and operations within the corridor will continue to deteriorate. Development and population growth in the communities served by the corridor are expected to result in traffic volume increases of 20 to 30 percent by 2035. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, a transportation demand management alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and four build alternatives. Build alternatives include: 1) spot improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address those safety issues that can be addressed without acquiring any new rights-of-way; 2) safety and design improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address all crucial safety issues even if new rights-of-way are required; 3) safety and design improvements and expansion of roadway carrying capacity by adding one new general purpose travel lane in each direction; and 4) provision of a new interchange at I-94 and Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at Twenty-seventh Street to replace the existing half interchange. Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative; the alternative has a estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would improve safety and traffic operations, accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service, maintain a key link within the state and regional transportation networks, and replace deteriorating pavement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential units, but very few. In addition, the project would displace of farmland, including entire farms, and wetlands. The project would traverse seven floodplains, though these are already traversed by the existing facilities. The project would also traverse habitat of the state protected Butler's garter snake, seaside crowfoot, alkali bulrush, bluestem goldenrod, reflexed trillium, and smooth black-haw. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 831 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0494D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080121, 678 pages and maps, March 27, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36378522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE I-94, I-43, I-894, AND STH 119 (AIRPORT SPUR), I-94/USH 41 INTERCHANGE TO HOWARD AVENUE, KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 16382848; 13355 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 37.6 miles of highway along Interstate 94 (I-94), I-43, I-894, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 119 (Airport Spur) from the I-94/US 41 interchange to Howard Avenue in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin and Lake County, Illinois is proposed. The I-94 north-south freeway corridor includes I-94 from Howard Avenue south to the I-94/US 41 interchange just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, I-894 from Mitchell interchange west to Thirty-fifth Street, and STH 119. The freeway corridor is characterized by deteriorating pavement, safety drawbacks, and design deficiencies, including left-hand entrances and exits and sharp curves. At time passes and traffic volumes increase, safety, pavement conditions, and operations within the corridor will continue to deteriorate. Development and population growth in the communities served by the corridor are expected to result in traffic volume increases of 20 to 30 percent by 2035. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, a transportation demand management alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and four build alternatives. Build alternatives include: 1) spot improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address those safety issues that can be addressed without acquiring any new rights-of-way; 2) safety and design improvements to replace the existing roadway and bridges and address all crucial safety issues even if new rights-of-way are required; 3) safety and design improvements and expansion of roadway carrying capacity by adding one new general purpose travel lane in each direction; and 4) provision of a new interchange at I-94 and Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at Twenty-seventh Street to replace the existing half interchange. Alternative 2 has been selected as the preferred alternative; the alternative has a estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would improve safety and traffic operations, accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service, maintain a key link within the state and regional transportation networks, and replace deteriorating pavement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential units, but very few. In addition, the project would displace of farmland, including entire farms, and wetlands. The project would traverse seven floodplains, though these are already traversed by the existing facilities. The project would also traverse habitat of the state protected Butler's garter snake, seaside crowfoot, alkali bulrush, bluestem goldenrod, reflexed trillium, and smooth black-haw. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 831 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0494D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080121, 678 pages and maps, March 27, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/16382848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+I-94%2C+I-43%2C+I-894%2C+AND+STH+119+%28AIRPORT+SPUR%29%2C+I-94%2FUSH+41+INTERCHANGE+TO+HOWARD+AVENUE%2C+KENOSHA%2C+RACINE%2C+AND+MILWAUKEE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN+AND+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36393034; 13352-080118_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36388932; 13352-080118_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36388069; 13352-080118_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36387321; 13352-080118_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36387268; 13352-080118_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36382173; 13352-080118_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381471; 13352-080118_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378345; 13352-080118_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT BY HORIZON AIR TO PROVIDE SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE TO MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT, MAMMOTH LAKES, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16371807; 13352 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment by Horizon Air of scheduled commercial air service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MYA), which is owned by the town of Mammoth Lakes, California, is proposed. The nearest airport with scheduled commercial air service is in Reno, 170 miles from Mammoth Lakes. This hampers the towns ability to function at full capacity as a tourist destination. The proposed service would begin in December 2008, with two daily flights from Los Angeles International Airport to MYA during the winter ski season (December to April). Horizon Air has proposed to use their Bombardier DHC 8-402 (Q400 Dash 8) aircraft, which can seat up to 76 passengers. The Q400 Dash 8 is part of the Bombardier Dash 8 line of turboprop passenger aircraft. The town of Mammoth Lakes has prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a forecast of future commercial aviation activity at MYA. The FAA has reviewed and approved this forecast. Winter ski service is project to increase to a maximum of eight flights per day by 2011. The aviation activity forecast also considered the addition of two flights per day during the summer months beginning in 2012. The proposed action would include approval of the proposed amendment to operations specifications for Horizon Air to permit scheduled commercial air service to MYA using the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 aircraft pursuant to the appropriate federal regulation (14 CFD Part 119); approval of Mammoth Lakes' application for a certificate amendment under 14 CFR Part 139; and approval of modifications of the MYA certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorizing the Horizon Air operations would ensure safe, efficient access to skiing and other recreational facilities in the Mammoth Lakes area. Easing access to Mammoth Lakes would enhance the recreational experience of residents of and visitors to southern California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Provision of commercial air service would result in significant periodic noise emissions from the turboprop aircraft in the vicinity of parks and other recreational lands. Noise would affect wildlife, including federally protected species, as well as recreationists and residents. The availability of the air service would sour development in the community, resulting in losses of vegetation and wildlife habitat and recreation lands and increase ambient noise and air pollution levels. Runway runoff and the use of deicing and other chemicals would degrade receiving surface flows. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0001D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080118, Documentation--122 pages and maps, Appendices A through E--498 pages and maps, Appendices F through K---318 pages and maps, Appendix L--81 pages, CD-ROM, March 25, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REQUEST+FOR+OPERATIONS+SPECIFICATIONS+AMENDMENT+BY+HORIZON+AIR+TO+PROVIDE+SCHEDULED+AIR+SERVICE+TO+MAMMOTH+YOSEMITE+AIRPORT%2C+MAMMOTH+LAKES%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SH-75, TIMMERMAN TO KETCHUM, BLAINE COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SH-75, TIMMERMAN TO KETCHUM, BLAINE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36394137; 13335-080101_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 27-mile segment of State Highway (SH) 75 from its intersection with US 20 at Timmerman Junction to the city of Ketchum in Blaine County, Idaho is proposed. Two build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would generally consist of a four-lane roadway with a center turn lane, right-turn lanes, acceleration lanes, bus pullouts, pedestrian undercrossings, and traffic signals. Alternative 3 would provide for the same physical footprint throughout the 27-mile corridor as Alternative 2, but the curb lane would operate as a high-occupancy vehicle lane in the morning and evening peak hours from McKercher Boulevard to Elkhorn Road. Project construction would be undertaken over the next 15 to 20 years. Each of the six planned phases would likely require one to two years to complete. The phases would include: 1) improvements between IS 20 and Gannet Road, 2) improvements from Gannet Road and Fox Acres Boulevard, including improvements within the city of Bellevue; 3) improvement from Fox Acres Road to McKercher Road; 4) reconstruction of the roadway from McKercher Boulevard to Elkhorn Road; 5) improvement of the roadway from Elkhorn Road to River Street; and 6) improvement of the roadway from River Street to Saddle Road, including replacement or reconstruction of the Trail Creek Bridge; and 7) reconstruction of the roadway from US 20 to Gannett Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway improvements would address congestion and safety problems characterizing the existing facility by increases facility capacity and improving design significantly. Designation of the curb land as a high-occupancy-vehicle lane under Alternative 3 would encourage the use of buses and carpooling, further reducing congestion on the roadway. Noise and air pollutant emissions along the corridor would decrease significantly and pedestrian safety would be enhanced. Connections between business areas and between residential areas and employment centers would be eased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of residences and commercial establishments as well as farmland and natural vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Bridge construction on Trail and Willow creeks, an unnamed tributary 0.25 mile north of Timmerman Junction, and the Big Wood River would affect these perennial surface flows. Ten federally protected species occur in Blaine County, though only four species could possibly be impacted and these species are not likely to be significantly affected. Rights-of-way development would result in displacement of 2.26 acres of natural wetlands and 1.18 acres of irrigation-dependent wetlands. Traffic-generated noise levels along the full build corridor would exceed federal standards at eight noise sensitive receptor sites, two of which could benefit from noise control barriers; the No-Build Alternative would affect 111 sensitive noise receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0152D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080101, 567 pages, CD-ROM, March 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-00-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Idaho KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SH-75%2C+TIMMERMAN+TO+KETCHUM%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SH-75%2C+TIMMERMAN+TO+KETCHUM%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SH-75, TIMMERMAN TO KETCHUM, BLAINE COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SH-75, TIMMERMAN TO KETCHUM, BLAINE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36383000; 13335-080101_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 27-mile segment of State Highway (SH) 75 from its intersection with US 20 at Timmerman Junction to the city of Ketchum in Blaine County, Idaho is proposed. Two build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would generally consist of a four-lane roadway with a center turn lane, right-turn lanes, acceleration lanes, bus pullouts, pedestrian undercrossings, and traffic signals. Alternative 3 would provide for the same physical footprint throughout the 27-mile corridor as Alternative 2, but the curb lane would operate as a high-occupancy vehicle lane in the morning and evening peak hours from McKercher Boulevard to Elkhorn Road. Project construction would be undertaken over the next 15 to 20 years. Each of the six planned phases would likely require one to two years to complete. The phases would include: 1) improvements between IS 20 and Gannet Road, 2) improvements from Gannet Road and Fox Acres Boulevard, including improvements within the city of Bellevue; 3) improvement from Fox Acres Road to McKercher Road; 4) reconstruction of the roadway from McKercher Boulevard to Elkhorn Road; 5) improvement of the roadway from Elkhorn Road to River Street; and 6) improvement of the roadway from River Street to Saddle Road, including replacement or reconstruction of the Trail Creek Bridge; and 7) reconstruction of the roadway from US 20 to Gannett Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway improvements would address congestion and safety problems characterizing the existing facility by increases facility capacity and improving design significantly. Designation of the curb land as a high-occupancy-vehicle lane under Alternative 3 would encourage the use of buses and carpooling, further reducing congestion on the roadway. Noise and air pollutant emissions along the corridor would decrease significantly and pedestrian safety would be enhanced. Connections between business areas and between residential areas and employment centers would be eased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of residences and commercial establishments as well as farmland and natural vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Bridge construction on Trail and Willow creeks, an unnamed tributary 0.25 mile north of Timmerman Junction, and the Big Wood River would affect these perennial surface flows. Ten federally protected species occur in Blaine County, though only four species could possibly be impacted and these species are not likely to be significantly affected. Rights-of-way development would result in displacement of 2.26 acres of natural wetlands and 1.18 acres of irrigation-dependent wetlands. Traffic-generated noise levels along the full build corridor would exceed federal standards at eight noise sensitive receptor sites, two of which could benefit from noise control barriers; the No-Build Alternative would affect 111 sensitive noise receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0152D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080101, 567 pages, CD-ROM, March 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-00-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Idaho KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SH-75%2C+TIMMERMAN+TO+KETCHUM%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SH-75%2C+TIMMERMAN+TO+KETCHUM%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SH-75, TIMMERMAN TO KETCHUM, BLAINE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 16388176; 13335 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 27-mile segment of State Highway (SH) 75 from its intersection with US 20 at Timmerman Junction to the city of Ketchum in Blaine County, Idaho is proposed. Two build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would generally consist of a four-lane roadway with a center turn lane, right-turn lanes, acceleration lanes, bus pullouts, pedestrian undercrossings, and traffic signals. Alternative 3 would provide for the same physical footprint throughout the 27-mile corridor as Alternative 2, but the curb lane would operate as a high-occupancy vehicle lane in the morning and evening peak hours from McKercher Boulevard to Elkhorn Road. Project construction would be undertaken over the next 15 to 20 years. Each of the six planned phases would likely require one to two years to complete. The phases would include: 1) improvements between IS 20 and Gannet Road, 2) improvements from Gannet Road and Fox Acres Boulevard, including improvements within the city of Bellevue; 3) improvement from Fox Acres Road to McKercher Road; 4) reconstruction of the roadway from McKercher Boulevard to Elkhorn Road; 5) improvement of the roadway from Elkhorn Road to River Street; and 6) improvement of the roadway from River Street to Saddle Road, including replacement or reconstruction of the Trail Creek Bridge; and 7) reconstruction of the roadway from US 20 to Gannett Road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed highway improvements would address congestion and safety problems characterizing the existing facility by increases facility capacity and improving design significantly. Designation of the curb land as a high-occupancy-vehicle lane under Alternative 3 would encourage the use of buses and carpooling, further reducing congestion on the roadway. Noise and air pollutant emissions along the corridor would decrease significantly and pedestrian safety would be enhanced. Connections between business areas and between residential areas and employment centers would be eased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of residences and commercial establishments as well as farmland and natural vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Bridge construction on Trail and Willow creeks, an unnamed tributary 0.25 mile north of Timmerman Junction, and the Big Wood River would affect these perennial surface flows. Ten federally protected species occur in Blaine County, though only four species could possibly be impacted and these species are not likely to be significantly affected. Rights-of-way development would result in displacement of 2.26 acres of natural wetlands and 1.18 acres of irrigation-dependent wetlands. Traffic-generated noise levels along the full build corridor would exceed federal standards at eight noise sensitive receptor sites, two of which could benefit from noise control barriers; the No-Build Alternative would affect 111 sensitive noise receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0152D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080101, 567 pages, CD-ROM, March 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-00-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Idaho KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388176?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SH-75%2C+TIMMERMAN+TO+KETCHUM%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SH-75%2C+TIMMERMAN+TO+KETCHUM%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development of Crash Reduction Factors for Overhead Flashing Beacons at Rural Intersections in North Carolina AN - 20571982; 8124872 AB - The purpose of this project is to develop crash reduction factors for overhead flashing beacons at rural two-way stop sign-controlled intersections in North Carolina. Overhead flashing beacons are a common countermeasure used in North Carolina to help alleviate crash problems at intersections where drivers have difficulty recognizing the stop-control condition. The goal of this analysis is to develop crash reduction factors that reflect North Carolina conditions and decision making. Thirty-four treatment sites were chosen for analysis. Each treatment site was a rural four-leg intersection with no turn lanes and two-way stop control. Each treatment site had at least 3 years of after-period crash data available. Several methodologies were used to calculate the crash reduction factors. The biggest threats to the validity of the analysis that must be accounted for at the 34 treatment sites in this study were regression to the mean and the increase in traffic volumes. Regression to the mean is a significant threat as each treatment site was chosen because of its crash history. The increase in traffic volumes was also a concern because of the long duration of before-and-after periods at each site. Empirical Bayes before-and-after techniques were used to overcome the threat of regression to the mean. One hundred and seventy reference sites were chosen and the method of sample moments was carried out to calculate the necessary parameters. A linear assumption was used to account for the increase in traffic flow. On average, all categories of crashes studied decreased in the after period. JF - Journal of the Transportation Research Board AU - Murphy, B G AU - Hummer, JE AD - North Carolina Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, 1561 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1561, USA Y1 - 2008/03/17/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Mar 17 SP - 15 EP - 21 IS - 2030 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Historical account KW - USA, North Carolina KW - Motor vehicles KW - Flow rates KW - Transportation KW - Traffic safety KW - Rural areas KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20571982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Development+of+Crash+Reduction+Factors+for+Overhead+Flashing+Beacons+at+Rural+Intersections+in+North+Carolina&rft.au=Murphy%2C+B+G%3BHummer%2C+JE&rft.aulast=Murphy&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2008-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=2030&rft.spage=15&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2030-03 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - USA, North Carolina; Traffic safety; Rural areas; Motor vehicles; Historical account; Transportation; Flow rates DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2030-03 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Traffic Control Devices and Barrier Systems at Grade Crossings: Literature Review AN - 20571673; 8124875 AB - Accidents at grade crossings are a significant concern to the railroad industry, and a large proportion of these accidents are the result of driver error. To understand drivers' decisions and actions, FRA sponsored the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in the conduct of a literature review of research from 1990 to 2006 examining driver behavior at grade crossings. This review is intended to update the 1990 report Driver Behavior at Rail-Highway Crossings and to provide input for developing countermeasures to discourage dangerous driving behavior. This paper summarizes a small portion of the problem and presents findings from the review addressing the design and effectiveness of grade crossing traffic control devices and barrier systems. Although drivers generally understand that a grade crossing is nearby upon seeing one of five warning devices (crossbuck, advance warning sign, pavement markings, flashing light signals, and automatic gates), the precise meaning of the devices and the driver action required may not be well discriminated. This paper addresses the design of signs and presents the results of evaluations examining driver detection, comprehension, and compliance with current and proposed warning sign systems; discusses a way to improve the design of pavement markings; examines the causes for noncompliance at active crossings and considers ways to improve compliance by introducing barrier systems and by improving warning device credibility; and makes recommendations for practitioners and suggestions for additional research. JF - Journal of the Transportation Research Board AU - Yeh, M AU - Multer, J AD - U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA Y1 - 2008/03/17/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Mar 17 SP - 69 EP - 75 IS - 2030 KW - railroad crossings KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Compliance KW - Protective equipment KW - Accidents KW - Safety engineering KW - driving ability KW - Railroads KW - Reviews KW - traffic safety KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20571673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Traffic+Control+Devices+and+Barrier+Systems+at+Grade+Crossings%3A+Literature+Review&rft.au=Yeh%2C+M%3BMulter%2C+J&rft.aulast=Yeh&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=2030&rft.spage=69&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+Transportation+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2030-10 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Reviews; Compliance; traffic safety; Accidents; Protective equipment; Safety engineering; driving ability; Railroads DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2030-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). [Part 4 of 4] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). AN - 868224112; 13320-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ TRANSIT commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ TRANSIT rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to PSNY would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. OPSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February 2007 considered a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed action were estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. This draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The alternative would traverse a corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed alternative are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes, NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080086, Draft Supplemental EIS--1,101 pages, Appendices--624 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). [Part 3 of 4] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). AN - 868224108; 13320-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ TRANSIT commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ TRANSIT rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to PSNY would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. OPSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February 2007 considered a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed action were estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. This draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The alternative would traverse a corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed alternative are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes, NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080086, Draft Supplemental EIS--1,101 pages, Appendices--624 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). [Part 2 of 4] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). AN - 868224103; 13320-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ TRANSIT commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ TRANSIT rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to PSNY would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. OPSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February 2007 considered a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed action were estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. This draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The alternative would traverse a corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed alternative are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes, NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080086, Draft Supplemental EIS--1,101 pages, Appendices--624 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). [Part 1 of 4] T2 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). AN - 868224100; 13320-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ TRANSIT commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ TRANSIT rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to PSNY would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. OPSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February 2007 considered a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed action were estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. This draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The alternative would traverse a corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed alternative are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes, NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080086, Draft Supplemental EIS--1,101 pages, Appendices--624 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 36389239; 13322-080088_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway connecting US 93 with the Miller Creek area in Missoula County, Montana is proposed. The Miller creek area is generally bounded by Miller Creek Road/Upper Miller Creek Road on the east and Lower Miller Creek Road on the west and south. Primary access to the Miller Creek area is currently provided by Miller Creek Road, with an indirect access provided by Gharrett Street. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives offer a variety of alignments, while design features are generally the same across alternatives. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5A) segment of Miller Creek Road between US 93 and the north "Y" intersection would be widened to provide four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), with a left-turn lane at the southbound and northbound approaches to Briggs Street, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. A new traffic control signal would be installed at the intersection of Miller Creek Road and Briggs Street. The north "Y" would be realigned to the north and west of its current location to form a more perpendicular "T" intersection; a new signal would be installed at this intersection. Old US 93 between Brooks and Reserve streets would be widened to three lanes and a center left-turn lane and complemented with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. A new signal would be installed at the intersection of Old US 93 and US 93 (Reserve Street). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for efficient and safe access between US 93 and the Miller Creek area, including access to U.S. Forest Service System lands; maintain or improve future operations of US 93; create a transportation solution that provides a long-term and consistent response to comprehensive and transportation plans and accommodates planned growth in the Miller Creek area; and preserves and enhances the character of the roadway corridor neighborhood. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 9.2 acres under the preferred alternative would convert residential and commercial land to transportation use, requiring the relocation of one residence. Approximately 0.2 acre of wetlands would be displaced, and 0.6 acre of floodplain would be filled. A railroad easement would be required to accommodate one at-grade crossing. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 residences and one church. Impervious surface within the watershed would be increased by 6.2 acres, increasing runoff to the Bitterroot River by seven acre-feet per year. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, and landscaping and the entrance to the private Missoula County Club would be altered. Construction workers would encounter five sites containing contaminated wastes. 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 06-0585D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080088, Final EIS--491 pages and maps, Appendices--844 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-DTFH70-00-D-0016 KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 36389230; 13322-080088_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway connecting US 93 with the Miller Creek area in Missoula County, Montana is proposed. The Miller creek area is generally bounded by Miller Creek Road/Upper Miller Creek Road on the east and Lower Miller Creek Road on the west and south. Primary access to the Miller Creek area is currently provided by Miller Creek Road, with an indirect access provided by Gharrett Street. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives offer a variety of alignments, while design features are generally the same across alternatives. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5A) segment of Miller Creek Road between US 93 and the north "Y" intersection would be widened to provide four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), with a left-turn lane at the southbound and northbound approaches to Briggs Street, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. A new traffic control signal would be installed at the intersection of Miller Creek Road and Briggs Street. The north "Y" would be realigned to the north and west of its current location to form a more perpendicular "T" intersection; a new signal would be installed at this intersection. Old US 93 between Brooks and Reserve streets would be widened to three lanes and a center left-turn lane and complemented with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. A new signal would be installed at the intersection of Old US 93 and US 93 (Reserve Street). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for efficient and safe access between US 93 and the Miller Creek area, including access to U.S. Forest Service System lands; maintain or improve future operations of US 93; create a transportation solution that provides a long-term and consistent response to comprehensive and transportation plans and accommodates planned growth in the Miller Creek area; and preserves and enhances the character of the roadway corridor neighborhood. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 9.2 acres under the preferred alternative would convert residential and commercial land to transportation use, requiring the relocation of one residence. Approximately 0.2 acre of wetlands would be displaced, and 0.6 acre of floodplain would be filled. A railroad easement would be required to accommodate one at-grade crossing. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 residences and one church. Impervious surface within the watershed would be increased by 6.2 acres, increasing runoff to the Bitterroot River by seven acre-feet per year. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, and landscaping and the entrance to the private Missoula County Club would be altered. Construction workers would encounter five sites containing contaminated wastes. 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 06-0585D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080088, Final EIS--491 pages and maps, Appendices--844 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-DTFH70-00-D-0016 KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 36387285; 13322-080088_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway connecting US 93 with the Miller Creek area in Missoula County, Montana is proposed. The Miller creek area is generally bounded by Miller Creek Road/Upper Miller Creek Road on the east and Lower Miller Creek Road on the west and south. Primary access to the Miller Creek area is currently provided by Miller Creek Road, with an indirect access provided by Gharrett Street. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives offer a variety of alignments, while design features are generally the same across alternatives. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5A) segment of Miller Creek Road between US 93 and the north "Y" intersection would be widened to provide four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), with a left-turn lane at the southbound and northbound approaches to Briggs Street, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. A new traffic control signal would be installed at the intersection of Miller Creek Road and Briggs Street. The north "Y" would be realigned to the north and west of its current location to form a more perpendicular "T" intersection; a new signal would be installed at this intersection. Old US 93 between Brooks and Reserve streets would be widened to three lanes and a center left-turn lane and complemented with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. A new signal would be installed at the intersection of Old US 93 and US 93 (Reserve Street). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for efficient and safe access between US 93 and the Miller Creek area, including access to U.S. Forest Service System lands; maintain or improve future operations of US 93; create a transportation solution that provides a long-term and consistent response to comprehensive and transportation plans and accommodates planned growth in the Miller Creek area; and preserves and enhances the character of the roadway corridor neighborhood. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 9.2 acres under the preferred alternative would convert residential and commercial land to transportation use, requiring the relocation of one residence. Approximately 0.2 acre of wetlands would be displaced, and 0.6 acre of floodplain would be filled. A railroad easement would be required to accommodate one at-grade crossing. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 residences and one church. Impervious surface within the watershed would be increased by 6.2 acres, increasing runoff to the Bitterroot River by seven acre-feet per year. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, and landscaping and the entrance to the private Missoula County Club would be altered. Construction workers would encounter five sites containing contaminated wastes. 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 06-0585D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080088, Final EIS--491 pages and maps, Appendices--844 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-DTFH70-00-D-0016 KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 36381544; 13322-080088_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway connecting US 93 with the Miller Creek area in Missoula County, Montana is proposed. The Miller creek area is generally bounded by Miller Creek Road/Upper Miller Creek Road on the east and Lower Miller Creek Road on the west and south. Primary access to the Miller Creek area is currently provided by Miller Creek Road, with an indirect access provided by Gharrett Street. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives offer a variety of alignments, while design features are generally the same across alternatives. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5A) segment of Miller Creek Road between US 93 and the north "Y" intersection would be widened to provide four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), with a left-turn lane at the southbound and northbound approaches to Briggs Street, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. A new traffic control signal would be installed at the intersection of Miller Creek Road and Briggs Street. The north "Y" would be realigned to the north and west of its current location to form a more perpendicular "T" intersection; a new signal would be installed at this intersection. Old US 93 between Brooks and Reserve streets would be widened to three lanes and a center left-turn lane and complemented with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. A new signal would be installed at the intersection of Old US 93 and US 93 (Reserve Street). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for efficient and safe access between US 93 and the Miller Creek area, including access to U.S. Forest Service System lands; maintain or improve future operations of US 93; create a transportation solution that provides a long-term and consistent response to comprehensive and transportation plans and accommodates planned growth in the Miller Creek area; and preserves and enhances the character of the roadway corridor neighborhood. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 9.2 acres under the preferred alternative would convert residential and commercial land to transportation use, requiring the relocation of one residence. Approximately 0.2 acre of wetlands would be displaced, and 0.6 acre of floodplain would be filled. A railroad easement would be required to accommodate one at-grade crossing. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 residences and one church. Impervious surface within the watershed would be increased by 6.2 acres, increasing runoff to the Bitterroot River by seven acre-feet per year. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, and landscaping and the entrance to the private Missoula County Club would be altered. Construction workers would encounter five sites containing contaminated wastes. 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 06-0585D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080088, Final EIS--491 pages and maps, Appendices--844 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-DTFH70-00-D-0016 KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 36378458; 13322-080088_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway connecting US 93 with the Miller Creek area in Missoula County, Montana is proposed. The Miller creek area is generally bounded by Miller Creek Road/Upper Miller Creek Road on the east and Lower Miller Creek Road on the west and south. Primary access to the Miller Creek area is currently provided by Miller Creek Road, with an indirect access provided by Gharrett Street. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives offer a variety of alignments, while design features are generally the same across alternatives. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5A) segment of Miller Creek Road between US 93 and the north "Y" intersection would be widened to provide four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), with a left-turn lane at the southbound and northbound approaches to Briggs Street, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. A new traffic control signal would be installed at the intersection of Miller Creek Road and Briggs Street. The north "Y" would be realigned to the north and west of its current location to form a more perpendicular "T" intersection; a new signal would be installed at this intersection. Old US 93 between Brooks and Reserve streets would be widened to three lanes and a center left-turn lane and complemented with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. A new signal would be installed at the intersection of Old US 93 and US 93 (Reserve Street). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for efficient and safe access between US 93 and the Miller Creek area, including access to U.S. Forest Service System lands; maintain or improve future operations of US 93; create a transportation solution that provides a long-term and consistent response to comprehensive and transportation plans and accommodates planned growth in the Miller Creek area; and preserves and enhances the character of the roadway corridor neighborhood. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 9.2 acres under the preferred alternative would convert residential and commercial land to transportation use, requiring the relocation of one residence. Approximately 0.2 acre of wetlands would be displaced, and 0.6 acre of floodplain would be filled. A railroad easement would be required to accommodate one at-grade crossing. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 residences and one church. Impervious surface within the watershed would be increased by 6.2 acres, increasing runoff to the Bitterroot River by seven acre-feet per year. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, and landscaping and the entrance to the private Missoula County Club would be altered. Construction workers would encounter five sites containing contaminated wastes. 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 06-0585D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080088, Final EIS--491 pages and maps, Appendices--844 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-DTFH70-00-D-0016 KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACCESS TO THE REGION'S CORE, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIS OF FEBRUARY 2007). AN - 16376985; 13320 AB - PURPOSE: Development of a four-track commuter rail system between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and midtown Manhattan in New York City, New York is proposed. The 9.3-mile study corridor extends from Secaucus Junction Station to West 34th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Ten of the 11 NJ TRANSIT commuter rail lines that comprise the NJ TRANSIT rail system converge at Secaucus Junction Station. Federal and local authorities conducted a major investment study in 2003 to consider options for improving access between midtown Manhattan (the region's core) and growing populations west of the Hudson River in both New Jersey and New York. Under the proposed four-track rights-of-way system, two tracks would connect to the existing North River tunnels and two tracks would connect to newly constructed tunnels, descending and turning southward under The Palisades in North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken. Connections to the Northeast Corridor tracks would be designed to provide flexibility between the existing tunnels and the new tunnels, easing emergency operations and periodic closures for maintenance. The service plan for the new system would feature a total of 48 trains per peak hour from Secaucus Junction Station to Manhattan; this compares to the present situation, which allows only 23 trains per peak hour. The build alternative would include new tracks (Secaucus Connection) from the outer tracks of the existing main line to the lower level that would connect directly to the upper-level Northeast Corridor tracks west of Secaucus Junction Station. One-seat-ride, dual-mode service would be introduced to the 34th Street Station from the New Jersey Coast Line Bay Head Service, from Montclair-Boonton Line stations west of Montclair, from Pascack Valley Line, from Main and Bergen County Lines, and from the Raritan Valley Line. Improvements to the West End Wye in Jersey City would create a higher-speed, double-track connection with associated interlocking improvements along the M&E Lines. After crossing under the Hudson River, the tracks would ascend and turn northeast, intercepting the Hudson River Bulkhead below its granite structure in the vicinity of West 28th Street. Connections to PSNY would split from the main tracks after intercepting the bulkhead on the Manhattan side. OPSNY connector tracks would continue to ascend before turning east to tie into existing PSNY tracks. The Amtrak Empire Line would be re-profiled to avoid conflicts with the new connecting tracks. Beyond the point where the PSNY connector tracks would split off, the main tracks leading to the 34th Street Station would descend and split into four tracks, arranged two-over-two. At West 34th Street, the alignment would turn eastward to match the street grid above. Capital cost of the build alternative is estimated at $6.3 billion. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February 2007 considered a No-Build Alternative. Annual operation and maintenance costs for the proposed action were estimated at $143 million in the final EIS. This draft supplement to the final EIS presents a Refined Build Alternative. The alternative would traverse a corridor through Kearny, Secaucus, Jersey City, North Bergen, Union City, and Hoboken in New Jersey and the Hudson River and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. The project would continue to consist of additional commuter rail tracks and connections within the Northeast Corridor, new tunnels under the Palisades in New Jersey, the Hudson River and Manhattan as well as connections to a new station and t racks under West Thirty-Fourth Street from Eight Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Capital costs of implementation of the newly proposed alternative are estimated at $7.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity to accommodate projected ridership growth from rail lines west of the river; enhance passenger convenience via a one-seat ride; and improve system safety and reliability between Secaucus Junction Station and midtown Manhattan. Construction activities would employ 28,000 workers and generate $1.3 billion in personal income, $3.0 billion in business income, and $481 million in taxes, NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of numerous properties and property owners and 101.5 acres of vegetated land and the associated wildlife habitat, including 5.9 acres of wetlands and 95.6 acres of uplands. Construction activities would occur in areas containing high-quality historic and archaeological resource values; five historic sites identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, as would the historic Potter's Field in Secaucus and Industrial Remains site and Weehawken Ferry Slip in Hoboken. Noise and vibration generated during construction and by trains operating on the new system would violate federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. New system structures would mar visual aesthetics along the aboveground portion of the system in New Jersey. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste 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 07-0134D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080086, Draft Supplemental EIS--1,101 pages, Appendices--624 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.title=ACCESS+TO+THE+REGION%27S+CORE%2C+HUDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+AND+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+EIS+OF+FEBRUARY+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILLER CREEK ROAD, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16371774; 13322 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway connecting US 93 with the Miller Creek area in Missoula County, Montana is proposed. The Miller creek area is generally bounded by Miller Creek Road/Upper Miller Creek Road on the east and Lower Miller Creek Road on the west and south. Primary access to the Miller Creek area is currently provided by Miller Creek Road, with an indirect access provided by Gharrett Street. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives offer a variety of alignments, while design features are generally the same across alternatives. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5A) segment of Miller Creek Road between US 93 and the north "Y" intersection would be widened to provide four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), with a left-turn lane at the southbound and northbound approaches to Briggs Street, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. A new traffic control signal would be installed at the intersection of Miller Creek Road and Briggs Street. The north "Y" would be realigned to the north and west of its current location to form a more perpendicular "T" intersection; a new signal would be installed at this intersection. Old US 93 between Brooks and Reserve streets would be widened to three lanes and a center left-turn lane and complemented with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. A new signal would be installed at the intersection of Old US 93 and US 93 (Reserve Street). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for efficient and safe access between US 93 and the Miller Creek area, including access to U.S. Forest Service System lands; maintain or improve future operations of US 93; create a transportation solution that provides a long-term and consistent response to comprehensive and transportation plans and accommodates planned growth in the Miller Creek area; and preserves and enhances the character of the roadway corridor neighborhood. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 9.2 acres under the preferred alternative would convert residential and commercial land to transportation use, requiring the relocation of one residence. Approximately 0.2 acre of wetlands would be displaced, and 0.6 acre of floodplain would be filled. A railroad easement would be required to accommodate one at-grade crossing. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 19 residences and one church. Impervious surface within the watershed would be increased by 6.2 acres, increasing runoff to the Bitterroot River by seven acre-feet per year. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, and landscaping and the entrance to the private Missoula County Club would be altered. Construction workers would encounter five sites containing contaminated wastes. 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 06-0585D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080088, Final EIS--491 pages and maps, Appendices--844 pages, March 7, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-DTFH70-00-D-0016 KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILLER+CREEK+ROAD%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 - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36410529; 13315 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway widening and implementation of other improvements within the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor from I-10 to US 101 in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Currently, vehicular movements along I-405 are impeded by a gap in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network. HOV lanes are currenting operating on both northbound and southbound I-405 from the Orange County line to State Route 90 (Marina Freeway), but not within the project limits. As a result I-405 operates at a deficient level of service for a large portion of the day. If capacity improvements are not made, conditions will continue to deteriorate due to growth alone. Standardizing the southbound traffic lanes, median, and shoulder to meet mandatory standards would also make for a safer freeway. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, an HOV lane would be added along northbound I-405 between the project termini. Action Alternative 2 would add a standard northbound HOV lane and standardize northbound mixed-flow lanes via provision of a 12-foot half median, a 12-foot HOV lane, and five 12-foot mixed-flow lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In addition to the infrastructure provided under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would provide standard freeway profiles for northbound and southbound I-405 within the project limits, except through the I-405/I-10 interchange. Both action alternatives would involve widening of I-405 along the east side and along most of the west side throughout the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 would feature 12 and 13 soundwalls, respectively. Costs of alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are estimated at $649 million and $911 million in 2006 dollars. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding an HOV lane ad closing the HOV gap from the Orange County line to the I-405/US 101 interchange, the project would significantly reduce congestion along the entire I-405 corridor in the Los Angeles area. Air quality along the corridor would improve as operating conditions improved, reducing the regional air pollutant load. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional rights-of-way needs would result in the displacement of two commercial properties under either action alternative. Seven to 37 residential displacements would also occur, and freeway expansion and interchange alterations could disrupt community service functions during construction. The Village Church of Westwood would be affected under Alternative 3. The Montana Avenue off-ramp would be closed. Sound walls and new ramps would add to the degradation of visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four drainages would be relocated. One structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. The project would result In the removal of 115 to 162 mature native trees and affect three known wildlife crossing corridors during construction. Approximately four acres at the Getty View Trailhead and 0.3 acre at the Skirball center Trailhead would be displaced. Construction workers could encounter aerially deposited lead, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. Construction noise would exceed federal standards intermittently. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0390D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080081, Final EIS--327 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--252 pages, Continued Comments and Responses-497 pages, Appendices--211 pages, March 3, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-06-12-F KW - Community Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36392828; 13315-080081_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway widening and implementation of other improvements within the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor from I-10 to US 101 in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Currently, vehicular movements along I-405 are impeded by a gap in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network. HOV lanes are currenting operating on both northbound and southbound I-405 from the Orange County line to State Route 90 (Marina Freeway), but not within the project limits. As a result I-405 operates at a deficient level of service for a large portion of the day. If capacity improvements are not made, conditions will continue to deteriorate due to growth alone. Standardizing the southbound traffic lanes, median, and shoulder to meet mandatory standards would also make for a safer freeway. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, an HOV lane would be added along northbound I-405 between the project termini. Action Alternative 2 would add a standard northbound HOV lane and standardize northbound mixed-flow lanes via provision of a 12-foot half median, a 12-foot HOV lane, and five 12-foot mixed-flow lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In addition to the infrastructure provided under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would provide standard freeway profiles for northbound and southbound I-405 within the project limits, except through the I-405/I-10 interchange. Both action alternatives would involve widening of I-405 along the east side and along most of the west side throughout the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 would feature 12 and 13 soundwalls, respectively. Costs of alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are estimated at $649 million and $911 million in 2006 dollars. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding an HOV lane ad closing the HOV gap from the Orange County line to the I-405/US 101 interchange, the project would significantly reduce congestion along the entire I-405 corridor in the Los Angeles area. Air quality along the corridor would improve as operating conditions improved, reducing the regional air pollutant load. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional rights-of-way needs would result in the displacement of two commercial properties under either action alternative. Seven to 37 residential displacements would also occur, and freeway expansion and interchange alterations could disrupt community service functions during construction. The Village Church of Westwood would be affected under Alternative 3. The Montana Avenue off-ramp would be closed. Sound walls and new ramps would add to the degradation of visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four drainages would be relocated. One structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. The project would result In the removal of 115 to 162 mature native trees and affect three known wildlife crossing corridors during construction. Approximately four acres at the Getty View Trailhead and 0.3 acre at the Skirball center Trailhead would be displaced. Construction workers could encounter aerially deposited lead, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. Construction noise would exceed federal standards intermittently. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0390D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080081, Final EIS--327 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--252 pages, Continued Comments and Responses-497 pages, Appendices--211 pages, March 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-06-12-F KW - Community Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36389339; 13315-080081_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway widening and implementation of other improvements within the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor from I-10 to US 101 in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Currently, vehicular movements along I-405 are impeded by a gap in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network. HOV lanes are currenting operating on both northbound and southbound I-405 from the Orange County line to State Route 90 (Marina Freeway), but not within the project limits. As a result I-405 operates at a deficient level of service for a large portion of the day. If capacity improvements are not made, conditions will continue to deteriorate due to growth alone. Standardizing the southbound traffic lanes, median, and shoulder to meet mandatory standards would also make for a safer freeway. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, an HOV lane would be added along northbound I-405 between the project termini. Action Alternative 2 would add a standard northbound HOV lane and standardize northbound mixed-flow lanes via provision of a 12-foot half median, a 12-foot HOV lane, and five 12-foot mixed-flow lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In addition to the infrastructure provided under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would provide standard freeway profiles for northbound and southbound I-405 within the project limits, except through the I-405/I-10 interchange. Both action alternatives would involve widening of I-405 along the east side and along most of the west side throughout the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 would feature 12 and 13 soundwalls, respectively. Costs of alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are estimated at $649 million and $911 million in 2006 dollars. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding an HOV lane ad closing the HOV gap from the Orange County line to the I-405/US 101 interchange, the project would significantly reduce congestion along the entire I-405 corridor in the Los Angeles area. Air quality along the corridor would improve as operating conditions improved, reducing the regional air pollutant load. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional rights-of-way needs would result in the displacement of two commercial properties under either action alternative. Seven to 37 residential displacements would also occur, and freeway expansion and interchange alterations could disrupt community service functions during construction. The Village Church of Westwood would be affected under Alternative 3. The Montana Avenue off-ramp would be closed. Sound walls and new ramps would add to the degradation of visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four drainages would be relocated. One structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. The project would result In the removal of 115 to 162 mature native trees and affect three known wildlife crossing corridors during construction. Approximately four acres at the Getty View Trailhead and 0.3 acre at the Skirball center Trailhead would be displaced. Construction workers could encounter aerially deposited lead, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. Construction noise would exceed federal standards intermittently. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0390D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080081, Final EIS--327 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--252 pages, Continued Comments and Responses-497 pages, Appendices--211 pages, March 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-06-12-F KW - Community Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36383037; 13315-080081_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway widening and implementation of other improvements within the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor from I-10 to US 101 in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Currently, vehicular movements along I-405 are impeded by a gap in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network. HOV lanes are currenting operating on both northbound and southbound I-405 from the Orange County line to State Route 90 (Marina Freeway), but not within the project limits. As a result I-405 operates at a deficient level of service for a large portion of the day. If capacity improvements are not made, conditions will continue to deteriorate due to growth alone. Standardizing the southbound traffic lanes, median, and shoulder to meet mandatory standards would also make for a safer freeway. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, an HOV lane would be added along northbound I-405 between the project termini. Action Alternative 2 would add a standard northbound HOV lane and standardize northbound mixed-flow lanes via provision of a 12-foot half median, a 12-foot HOV lane, and five 12-foot mixed-flow lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In addition to the infrastructure provided under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would provide standard freeway profiles for northbound and southbound I-405 within the project limits, except through the I-405/I-10 interchange. Both action alternatives would involve widening of I-405 along the east side and along most of the west side throughout the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 would feature 12 and 13 soundwalls, respectively. Costs of alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are estimated at $649 million and $911 million in 2006 dollars. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding an HOV lane ad closing the HOV gap from the Orange County line to the I-405/US 101 interchange, the project would significantly reduce congestion along the entire I-405 corridor in the Los Angeles area. Air quality along the corridor would improve as operating conditions improved, reducing the regional air pollutant load. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional rights-of-way needs would result in the displacement of two commercial properties under either action alternative. Seven to 37 residential displacements would also occur, and freeway expansion and interchange alterations could disrupt community service functions during construction. The Village Church of Westwood would be affected under Alternative 3. The Montana Avenue off-ramp would be closed. Sound walls and new ramps would add to the degradation of visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four drainages would be relocated. One structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. The project would result In the removal of 115 to 162 mature native trees and affect three known wildlife crossing corridors during construction. Approximately four acres at the Getty View Trailhead and 0.3 acre at the Skirball center Trailhead would be displaced. Construction workers could encounter aerially deposited lead, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. Construction noise would exceed federal standards intermittently. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0390D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080081, Final EIS--327 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--252 pages, Continued Comments and Responses-497 pages, Appendices--211 pages, March 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-06-12-F KW - Community Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36382449; 13315-080081_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway widening and implementation of other improvements within the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor from I-10 to US 101 in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Currently, vehicular movements along I-405 are impeded by a gap in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network. HOV lanes are currenting operating on both northbound and southbound I-405 from the Orange County line to State Route 90 (Marina Freeway), but not within the project limits. As a result I-405 operates at a deficient level of service for a large portion of the day. If capacity improvements are not made, conditions will continue to deteriorate due to growth alone. Standardizing the southbound traffic lanes, median, and shoulder to meet mandatory standards would also make for a safer freeway. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, an HOV lane would be added along northbound I-405 between the project termini. Action Alternative 2 would add a standard northbound HOV lane and standardize northbound mixed-flow lanes via provision of a 12-foot half median, a 12-foot HOV lane, and five 12-foot mixed-flow lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In addition to the infrastructure provided under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would provide standard freeway profiles for northbound and southbound I-405 within the project limits, except through the I-405/I-10 interchange. Both action alternatives would involve widening of I-405 along the east side and along most of the west side throughout the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 would feature 12 and 13 soundwalls, respectively. Costs of alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are estimated at $649 million and $911 million in 2006 dollars. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding an HOV lane ad closing the HOV gap from the Orange County line to the I-405/US 101 interchange, the project would significantly reduce congestion along the entire I-405 corridor in the Los Angeles area. Air quality along the corridor would improve as operating conditions improved, reducing the regional air pollutant load. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional rights-of-way needs would result in the displacement of two commercial properties under either action alternative. Seven to 37 residential displacements would also occur, and freeway expansion and interchange alterations could disrupt community service functions during construction. The Village Church of Westwood would be affected under Alternative 3. The Montana Avenue off-ramp would be closed. Sound walls and new ramps would add to the degradation of visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four drainages would be relocated. One structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. The project would result In the removal of 115 to 162 mature native trees and affect three known wildlife crossing corridors during construction. Approximately four acres at the Getty View Trailhead and 0.3 acre at the Skirball center Trailhead would be displaced. Construction workers could encounter aerially deposited lead, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. Construction noise would exceed federal standards intermittently. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0390D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080081, Final EIS--327 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--252 pages, Continued Comments and Responses-497 pages, Appendices--211 pages, March 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-06-12-F KW - Community Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36382433; 13315-080081_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway widening and implementation of other improvements within the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor from I-10 to US 101 in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Currently, vehicular movements along I-405 are impeded by a gap in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network. HOV lanes are currenting operating on both northbound and southbound I-405 from the Orange County line to State Route 90 (Marina Freeway), but not within the project limits. As a result I-405 operates at a deficient level of service for a large portion of the day. If capacity improvements are not made, conditions will continue to deteriorate due to growth alone. Standardizing the southbound traffic lanes, median, and shoulder to meet mandatory standards would also make for a safer freeway. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, an HOV lane would be added along northbound I-405 between the project termini. Action Alternative 2 would add a standard northbound HOV lane and standardize northbound mixed-flow lanes via provision of a 12-foot half median, a 12-foot HOV lane, and five 12-foot mixed-flow lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In addition to the infrastructure provided under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would provide standard freeway profiles for northbound and southbound I-405 within the project limits, except through the I-405/I-10 interchange. Both action alternatives would involve widening of I-405 along the east side and along most of the west side throughout the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 would feature 12 and 13 soundwalls, respectively. Costs of alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are estimated at $649 million and $911 million in 2006 dollars. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding an HOV lane ad closing the HOV gap from the Orange County line to the I-405/US 101 interchange, the project would significantly reduce congestion along the entire I-405 corridor in the Los Angeles area. Air quality along the corridor would improve as operating conditions improved, reducing the regional air pollutant load. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional rights-of-way needs would result in the displacement of two commercial properties under either action alternative. Seven to 37 residential displacements would also occur, and freeway expansion and interchange alterations could disrupt community service functions during construction. The Village Church of Westwood would be affected under Alternative 3. The Montana Avenue off-ramp would be closed. Sound walls and new ramps would add to the degradation of visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four drainages would be relocated. One structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. The project would result In the removal of 115 to 162 mature native trees and affect three known wildlife crossing corridors during construction. Approximately four acres at the Getty View Trailhead and 0.3 acre at the Skirball center Trailhead would be displaced. Construction workers could encounter aerially deposited lead, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. Construction noise would exceed federal standards intermittently. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0390D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080081, Final EIS--327 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--252 pages, Continued Comments and Responses-497 pages, Appendices--211 pages, March 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-06-12-F KW - Community Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381681; 13315-080081_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway widening and implementation of other improvements within the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor from I-10 to US 101 in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Currently, vehicular movements along I-405 are impeded by a gap in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network. HOV lanes are currenting operating on both northbound and southbound I-405 from the Orange County line to State Route 90 (Marina Freeway), but not within the project limits. As a result I-405 operates at a deficient level of service for a large portion of the day. If capacity improvements are not made, conditions will continue to deteriorate due to growth alone. Standardizing the southbound traffic lanes, median, and shoulder to meet mandatory standards would also make for a safer freeway. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, an HOV lane would be added along northbound I-405 between the project termini. Action Alternative 2 would add a standard northbound HOV lane and standardize northbound mixed-flow lanes via provision of a 12-foot half median, a 12-foot HOV lane, and five 12-foot mixed-flow lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In addition to the infrastructure provided under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would provide standard freeway profiles for northbound and southbound I-405 within the project limits, except through the I-405/I-10 interchange. Both action alternatives would involve widening of I-405 along the east side and along most of the west side throughout the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 would feature 12 and 13 soundwalls, respectively. Costs of alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are estimated at $649 million and $911 million in 2006 dollars. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding an HOV lane ad closing the HOV gap from the Orange County line to the I-405/US 101 interchange, the project would significantly reduce congestion along the entire I-405 corridor in the Los Angeles area. Air quality along the corridor would improve as operating conditions improved, reducing the regional air pollutant load. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional rights-of-way needs would result in the displacement of two commercial properties under either action alternative. Seven to 37 residential displacements would also occur, and freeway expansion and interchange alterations could disrupt community service functions during construction. The Village Church of Westwood would be affected under Alternative 3. The Montana Avenue off-ramp would be closed. Sound walls and new ramps would add to the degradation of visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four drainages would be relocated. One structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. The project would result In the removal of 115 to 162 mature native trees and affect three known wildlife crossing corridors during construction. Approximately four acres at the Getty View Trailhead and 0.3 acre at the Skirball center Trailhead would be displaced. Construction workers could encounter aerially deposited lead, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. Construction noise would exceed federal standards intermittently. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0390D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080081, Final EIS--327 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--252 pages, Continued Comments and Responses-497 pages, Appendices--211 pages, March 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-06-12-F KW - Community Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - INTERSTATE 405, SEPULVEDA PASS WIDENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378255; 13315-080081_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway widening and implementation of other improvements within the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor from I-10 to US 101 in the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California are proposed. Currently, vehicular movements along I-405 are impeded by a gap in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network. HOV lanes are currenting operating on both northbound and southbound I-405 from the Orange County line to State Route 90 (Marina Freeway), but not within the project limits. As a result I-405 operates at a deficient level of service for a large portion of the day. If capacity improvements are not made, conditions will continue to deteriorate due to growth alone. Standardizing the southbound traffic lanes, median, and shoulder to meet mandatory standards would also make for a safer freeway. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in detail in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, an HOV lane would be added along northbound I-405 between the project termini. Action Alternative 2 would add a standard northbound HOV lane and standardize northbound mixed-flow lanes via provision of a 12-foot half median, a 12-foot HOV lane, and five 12-foot mixed-flow lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In addition to the infrastructure provided under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would provide standard freeway profiles for northbound and southbound I-405 within the project limits, except through the I-405/I-10 interchange. Both action alternatives would involve widening of I-405 along the east side and along most of the west side throughout the project limits. Alternatives 2 and 3 would feature 12 and 13 soundwalls, respectively. Costs of alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are estimated at $649 million and $911 million in 2006 dollars. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding an HOV lane ad closing the HOV gap from the Orange County line to the I-405/US 101 interchange, the project would significantly reduce congestion along the entire I-405 corridor in the Los Angeles area. Air quality along the corridor would improve as operating conditions improved, reducing the regional air pollutant load. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional rights-of-way needs would result in the displacement of two commercial properties under either action alternative. Seven to 37 residential displacements would also occur, and freeway expansion and interchange alterations could disrupt community service functions during construction. The Village Church of Westwood would be affected under Alternative 3. The Montana Avenue off-ramp would be closed. Sound walls and new ramps would add to the degradation of visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four drainages would be relocated. One structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. The project would result In the removal of 115 to 162 mature native trees and affect three known wildlife crossing corridors during construction. Approximately four acres at the Getty View Trailhead and 0.3 acre at the Skirball center Trailhead would be displaced. Construction workers could encounter aerially deposited lead, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. Construction noise would exceed federal standards intermittently. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0390D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080081, Final EIS--327 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--252 pages, Continued Comments and Responses-497 pages, Appendices--211 pages, March 3, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-06-12-F KW - Community Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+405%2C+SEPULVEDA+PASS+WIDENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 3, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The Woodson debris flow, Woodson, Oregon AN - 917288669; 629956-2 JF - AEG News AU - Burns, Bill AU - Hinkle, Jason AU - Hay, Stephen Y1 - 2008/03// PY - 2008 DA - March 2008 SP - 21 EP - 24 PB - Association of Engineering Geologists, Lawrence, KS VL - 51 IS - 1 SN - 0899-5788, 0899-5788 KW - United States KW - embankments KW - geologic hazards KW - damage KW - stability KW - debris flows KW - Oregon KW - landslides KW - mitigation KW - Columbia County Oregon KW - slope environment KW - marine environment KW - mass movements KW - natural hazards KW - floods KW - Woodson Oregon KW - land use KW - catastrophes KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917288669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=AEG+News&rft.atitle=The+Woodson+debris+flow%2C+Woodson%2C+Oregon&rft.au=Burns%2C+Bill%3BHinkle%2C+Jason%3BHay%2C+Stephen&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=Bill&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=21&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AEG+News&rft.issn=08995788&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 1 N1 - PubXState - KS N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - catastrophes; Columbia County Oregon; damage; debris flows; embankments; floods; geologic hazards; land use; landslides; marine environment; mass movements; mitigation; natural hazards; Oregon; slope environment; stability; United States; Woodson Oregon ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Field evaluation of a MEMS-based real-time deformation monitoring system AN - 50568160; 2008-123970 JF - Geotechnical News AU - Barendse, Matthew B Y1 - 2008/03// PY - 2008 DA - March 2008 SP - 41 EP - 44 PB - BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, BC VL - 26 IS - 1 SN - 0823-650X, 0823-650X KW - United States KW - embankments KW - monitoring KW - inclinometers KW - prediction KW - deformation KW - evaluation KW - landslides KW - New York KW - foundations KW - MEMS KW - mass movements KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50568160?accountid=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=Geotechnical+News&rft.atitle=Field+evaluation+of+a+MEMS-based+real-time+deformation+monitoring+system&rft.au=Barendse%2C+Matthew+B&rft.aulast=Barendse&rft.aufirst=Matthew&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=41&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geotechnical+News&rft.issn=0823650X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 2 N1 - PubXState - BC N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - deformation; embankments; evaluation; field studies; foundations; inclinometers; landslides; mass movements; MEMS; monitoring; New York; prediction; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - NHTSA Announces Membership of New EMS Advisory Council AN - 212158434 JF - EMS : Emergency Medical Services Magazine AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2008/03// PY - 2008 DA - Mar 2008 SP - 28 CY - Fort Atkinson PB - SouthComm Business Media LLC VL - 37 IS - 3 SN - 00946575 KW - Medical Sciences--Orthopedics And Traumatology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212158434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthcompleteshell&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=EMS+%3A+Emergency+Medical+Services+Magazine&rft.atitle=NHTSA+Announces+Membership+of+New+EMS+Advisory+Council&rft.au=Anonymous&rft.aulast=Anonymous&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=28&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=EMS+%3A+Emergency+Medical+Services+Magazine&rft.issn=00946575&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central N1 - Copyright - Copyright Cygnus Business Media Mar 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-06-17 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The Art of Successfully Applying Human Systems Integration AN - 21105205; 11128993 AB - This paper reviews developments in human factors and then draws from a number of 'best practice' cases in studying how best to apply behavioral science principles, knowledge, and analytical tools to the engineering design or improvement of systems. Government and other commercial experiences are examined with a focus on the Navy human system integration (HSI) process. Included are discussions facilitated at a workshop session sponsored by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. There is general consensus that in addition to using a well-designed or proven process and doing the right things, success is dependent upon attending to a prioritized short list of critical elements. Continued focus on these elements is necessary to successfully apply human behavioral sciences effectively during design, construction, and operation of systems to improve safety, reliability, effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of life. JF - Naval Engineers Journal AU - Landsburg, Alexander C AU - Avery, Larry AU - Beaton, Robert AU - Bost, J Robert AU - Comperatore, Carlos AU - Khandpur, Rajiv AU - Malone, Thomas B AU - Parker, Christopher AU - Popkin, Stephen AU - Sheridan, Thomas B AD - Department of Transportation's Human Factors Coordinating Committee. Y1 - 2008/03// PY - 2008 DA - Mar 2008 SP - 77 EP - 107 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 USA VL - 120 IS - 1 SN - 0028-1425, 0028-1425 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Efficiency KW - best practices KW - Transportation KW - safety engineering KW - Reviews KW - Human factors KW - quality of life KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21105205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Naval+Engineers+Journal&rft.atitle=The+Art+of+Successfully+Applying+Human+Systems+Integration&rft.au=Landsburg%2C+Alexander+C%3BAvery%2C+Larry%3BBeaton%2C+Robert%3BBost%2C+J+Robert%3BComperatore%2C+Carlos%3BKhandpur%2C+Rajiv%3BMalone%2C+Thomas+B%3BParker%2C+Christopher%3BPopkin%2C+Stephen%3BSheridan%2C+Thomas+B&rft.aulast=Landsburg&rft.aufirst=Alexander&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=120&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=77&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Naval+Engineers+Journal&rft.issn=00281425&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1559-3584.2008.00113.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - quality of life; Efficiency; Reviews; safety engineering; Transportation; best practices; Human factors DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-3584.2008.00113.x ER -