Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts.
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
7/17/19 - in process of completing another reevaluation to account for changes since the EA/reeval.&nbsp; These include the addition of new roundabouts, adjustments to system interchanges, construction phasing and consideration of another action within the footprint of this project.&nbsp; Anticipate the reeval to be approved by Sept 1st, 2019.&nbsp; Of note, project proponents received a TIGER grant, mm is currently working with HQ on the draft Grant Agreement.&nbsp; NDOT also working with Build America Bureau to secure option for the future prime contractor to obtain TIFIA funds to cash flow construction, if the contractor elects to utilize TIFIA funds.&nbsp; The state wants the project constructed in 3 years, but have the construction prime contractor cash flow the work so NDOT pays for the construction over 10 years. MM
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Expansion of concourse A by nine gates
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Various improvements related to airport reference code change.
Consultation with SHPO will be re-initiated due to time lapse.
Consultation with SHPO will be re-initiated due to time lapse.
Consultation with SHPO will be re-initiated due to time lapse.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
Section 106 Consultation
Section 106 Consultation
Section 106 Consultation
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The last major reconstruction project over the full length of the runway was more than 30 years ago. The EA will study alternatives to complete the runway reconstruction including maintaining airport operations during construction through use of a temporary runway on the taxiway. &nbsp;The various project elements anticipated as part of the proposed action include:&nbsp;1. Reconstruction of Runway 13/31 and Taxiway Alpha2. Clearing of the approach surfaces to Runway 13/313. Use of Taxiway Alpha as temporary Runway 14/32&nbsp;4. Temporary closure of Runway 4/225. Relocation of the Upper Air Inflation Building (balloon launch facility) – one alternative to accomplish this includes acquisition of over three acres of land.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Fencing and obstruction removal project
Further Evalution determined no 404 permit needed. Project Impacts to water of the US under .1 acres
Further Evalution determined no 404 permit needed. Project Impacts to water of the US under .1 acres
Further Evalution determined no 404 permit needed. Project Impacts to water of the US under .1 acres
Further Evalution determined no 404 permit needed. Project Impacts to water of the US under .1 acres
We are modifying Milestonte 3 of the ESA consultation to extend the consultation period 30 days. Additional time needed for Consultation due to (1) the amount and scope of additional information about the Project being relayed to the Service by the action agencies, other agencies, tribal entities and the Applicant; (2) the increasing complexity of assessing impacts and their significance based on this additional information; and (3) recent revisions to regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA, that must be applied to consultations underway as of October 28, 2019. The extension should not affect the schedule for the revised date for the EIS.
We are modifying Milestonte 3 of the ESA consultation to extend the consultation period 30 days. Additional time needed for Consultation due to (1) the amount and scope of additional information about the Project being relayed to the Service by the action agencies, other agencies, tribal entities and the Applicant; (2) the increasing complexity of assessing impacts and their significance based on this additional information; and (3) recent revisions to regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA, that must be applied to consultations underway as of October 28, 2019. The extension should not affect the schedule for the revised date for the EIS.
We are modifying Milestonte 3 of the ESA consultation to extend the consultation period 30 days. Additional time needed for Consultation due to (1) the amount and scope of additional information about the Project being relayed to the Service by the action agencies, other agencies, tribal entities and the Applicant; (2) the increasing complexity of assessing impacts and their significance based on this additional information; and (3) recent revisions to regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA, that must be applied to consultations underway as of October 28, 2019. The extension should not affect the schedule for the revised date for the EIS.
We are modifying Milestonte 3 of the ESA consultation to extend the consultation period 30 days. Additional time needed for Consultation due to (1) the amount and scope of additional information about the Project being relayed to the Service by the action agencies, other agencies, tribal entities and the Applicant; (2) the increasing complexity of assessing impacts and their significance based on this additional information; and (3) recent revisions to regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA, that must be applied to consultations underway as of October 28, 2019. The extension should not affect the schedule for the revised date for the EIS.
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
The proposed undertaking consists of installing approximately 2,300 feet of 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the location of the existing earthen swale used for stormwater conveyance.&nbsp; The RCP will connect to existing storm drains to the northwest at the intersection of runway 9L-27R and taxiway B and on the southeast end at the intersection of taxiways D and D8 (the infield area north of the intersection of Joe Crosson Drive and Wing Avenue).&nbsp; The RCP would be covered leaving grated openings to capture stormwater flows.&nbsp; The area would be graded to comply with FAA’s engineering design standards for the runway object free area (ROFA)(1.5 – 5 percent grade) and runway safety area (RSA) (0 – 3 percent grade).This undertaking also includes the installation of an additional 800 feet of RCP from approximately the center of the previous mentioned RCP south connecting to an underground detention basin in the proposed El Cajon Development area just south of Joe Crosson Drive.&nbsp; The installation of this RCP would require trenching under runway 9R-27L, taxiway D and an apron to connect to the detention basin.&nbsp;
UPDATE: Project will utilize the agreements obtained by the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.&nbsp; Agreements received in September 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following agreements from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to construction:&nbsp;1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration&nbsp;Section 2080.1 Agreement for Threatened and Endangered Species
UPDATE: Project will utilize the agreements obtained by the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.&nbsp; Agreements received in September 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following agreements from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to construction:&nbsp;1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration&nbsp;Section 2080.1 Agreement for Threatened and Endangered Species
UPDATE: Project will utilize the agreements obtained by the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.&nbsp; Agreements received in September 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following agreements from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to construction:&nbsp;1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration&nbsp;Section 2080.1 Agreement for Threatened and Endangered Species
UPDATE: Project will utilize the agreements obtained by the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.&nbsp; Agreements received in September 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following agreements from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to construction:&nbsp;1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration&nbsp;Section 2080.1 Agreement for Threatened and Endangered Species
UPDATE: Project will utilize the agreements obtained by the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.&nbsp; Agreements received in September 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following agreements from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to construction:&nbsp;1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration&nbsp;Section 2080.1 Agreement for Threatened and Endangered Species
UPDATE: Section 401 certification obtain in April 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following permits prior to construction from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region:Section 401 permit
UPDATE: Section 401 certification obtain in April 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following permits prior to construction from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region:Section 401 permit
UPDATE: Section 401 certification obtain in April 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following permits prior to construction from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region:Section 401 permit
UPDATE: Section 401 certification obtain in April 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following permits prior to construction from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region:Section 401 permit
UPDATE: Section 401 certification obtain in April 2019.Project Sponsor will obtain the following permits prior to construction from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region:Section 401 permit
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States. The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
This page has been replaced with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act&nbsp;.
This page has been replaced with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act&nbsp;.
This page has been replaced with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act&nbsp;.
This page has been replaced with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act&nbsp;.
This page has been replaced with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act.&nbsp;
This page has been replaced with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act.&nbsp;
This page has been replaced with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act.&nbsp;
This page has been replaced with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act.&nbsp;
This EA describes the transportation, social, physical and environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project (Project). The Project is a planned 9- to 10-mile transitway in Ramsey and Washington counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
This EA describes the transportation, social, physical and environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project (Project). The Project is a planned 9- to 10-mile transitway in Ramsey and Washington counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
This EA describes the transportation, social, physical and environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project (Project). The Project is a planned 9- to 10-mile transitway in Ramsey and Washington counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
The Forest Service received a formal objection that they need to respond to through the land management planning objections process 36CFR219.56.&nbsp; This is due to the fact that the crow creek EIS is deciding on a land management plan amendment that was originally developed under NFMA and not NEPA.&nbsp; The agency did&nbsp;not take into consideration the longer objections process under NFMA when developing thi OFD project timeline under the NEPA regs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Forest Service received a formal objection that they need to respond to through the land management planning objections process 36CFR219.56.&nbsp; This is due to the fact that the crow creek EIS is deciding on a land management plan amendment that was originally developed under NFMA and not NEPA.&nbsp; The agency did&nbsp;not take into consideration the longer objections process under NFMA when developing thi OFD project timeline under the NEPA regs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Forest Service received a formal objection that they need to respond to through the land management planning objections process 36CFR219.56.&nbsp; This is due to the fact that the crow creek EIS is deciding on a land management plan amendment that was originally developed under NFMA and not NEPA.&nbsp; The agency did&nbsp;not take into consideration the longer objections process under NFMA when developing thi OFD project timeline under the NEPA regs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Forest Service received a formal objection that they need to respond to through the land management planning objections process 36CFR219.56.&nbsp; This is due to the fact that the crow creek EIS is deciding on a land management plan amendment that was originally developed under NFMA and not NEPA.&nbsp; The agency did&nbsp;not take into consideration the longer objections process under NFMA when developing thi OFD project timeline under the NEPA regs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Forest Service received a formal objection that they need to respond to through the land management planning objections process 36CFR219.56.&nbsp; This is due to the fact that the crow creek EIS is deciding on a land management plan amendment that was originally developed under NFMA and not NEPA.&nbsp; The agency did&nbsp;not take into consideration the longer objections process under NFMA when developing thi OFD project timeline under the NEPA regs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Forest Service received a formal objection that they need to respond to through the land management planning objections process 36CFR219.56.&nbsp; This is due to the fact that the crow creek EIS is deciding on a land management plan amendment that was originally developed under NFMA and not NEPA.&nbsp; The agency did&nbsp;not take into consideration the longer objections process under NFMA when developing thi OFD project timeline under the NEPA regs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Forest Service received a formal objection that they need to respond to through the land management planning objections process 36CFR219.56.&nbsp; This is due to the fact that the crow creek EIS is deciding on a land management plan amendment that was originally developed under NFMA and not NEPA.&nbsp; The agency did&nbsp;not take into consideration the longer objections process under NFMA when developing thi OFD project timeline under the NEPA regs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Forest Service received a formal objection that they need to respond to through the land management planning objections process 36CFR219.56.&nbsp; This is due to the fact that the crow creek EIS is deciding on a land management plan amendment that was originally developed under NFMA and not NEPA.&nbsp; The agency did&nbsp;not take into consideration the longer objections process under NFMA when developing thi OFD project timeline under the NEPA regs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Both Canada lynx (threatened) and North American wolverine (proposed) have the potential to occur in the project area.&nbsp; In its Draft EIS, the Forest Service determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) Canada lynx&nbsp;and not likely to jeopardize the continued existence/NLAA for wolverine.&nbsp; FWS received a request for&nbsp;concurrence on these species August 22, 2019.
Both Canada lynx (threatened) and North American wolverine (proposed) have the potential to occur in the project area.&nbsp; In its Draft EIS, the Forest Service determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) Canada lynx&nbsp;and not likely to jeopardize the continued existence/NLAA for wolverine.&nbsp; FWS received a request for&nbsp;concurrence on these species August 22, 2019.
Both Canada lynx (threatened) and North American wolverine (proposed) have the potential to occur in the project area.&nbsp; In its Draft EIS, the Forest Service determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) Canada lynx&nbsp;and not likely to jeopardize the continued existence/NLAA for wolverine.&nbsp; FWS received a request for&nbsp;concurrence on these species August 22, 2019.
Both Canada lynx (threatened) and North American wolverine (proposed) have the potential to occur in the project area.&nbsp; In its Draft EIS, the Forest Service determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) Canada lynx&nbsp;and not likely to jeopardize the continued existence/NLAA for wolverine.&nbsp; FWS received a request for&nbsp;concurrence on these species August 22, 2019.
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
UDOT began an Environmental Impact Statement in the spring of 2018 for Little Cottonwood Canyon and Wasatch Boulevard in partnership with Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the wide variety of comments received during the initial scoping period and the complexity of the transportation challenges in the canyon, UDOT has adjusted the study approach in order to identify and evaluate reasonable and practical solutions that will address immediate needs in the study area. The scoping period for the EIS was reinitiated in March 2019. The EIS will address the immediate challenges and inefficiencies of trailhead parking and avalanche mitigation in Little Cottonwood Canyon and traffic congestion on Wasatch Boulevard. The following specific improvements are under consideration as alternatives in the EIS:


	Avalanche mitigation
	Trailhead parking at Bridge, Lisa Falls and White Pine
	Wasatch Boulevard improved mobility for commuters and adjacent neighborhoods
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts.

&nbsp;

Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts.

&nbsp;

Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts.

&nbsp;

Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Section 7 consultation for project impacts.

&nbsp;

Section 7 consultation for project impacts. Determination of No Effect processed under the Memorandum of Agreement between UDOT, FHWA Utah Division, and the USFWS Utah Field Office for Streamlining of Informal Section 7 Consultation, therefore a Letter of Concurrence is not required.
Consultation completed using FWS Northern Long eared bat Determination key in IPaC.&nbsp; Dkey falls under FWS programmatic BO for the NLEB 4(d) rule.
Consultation completed using FWS Northern Long eared bat Determination key in IPaC.&nbsp; Dkey falls under FWS programmatic BO for the NLEB 4(d) rule.
Consultation completed using FWS Northern Long eared bat Determination key in IPaC.&nbsp; Dkey falls under FWS programmatic BO for the NLEB 4(d) rule.
Consultation completed using FWS Northern Long eared bat Determination key in IPaC.&nbsp; Dkey falls under FWS programmatic BO for the NLEB 4(d) rule.
404 Permit will be sought after engineering is complete and prior to construction which will likely be several years from now.
Section 404 is ongoing between the Sponsor and USACE.&nbsp;&nbsp;
404 Permit will be sought after engineering is complete and prior to construction which will likely be several years from now.
Section 404 is ongoing between the Sponsor and USACE.&nbsp;&nbsp;
404 Permit will be sought after engineering is complete and prior to construction which will likely be several years from now.
Section 404 is ongoing between the Sponsor and USACE.&nbsp;&nbsp;
404 Permit will be sought after engineering is complete and prior to construction which will likely be several years from now.
Section 404 is ongoing between the Sponsor and USACE.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period), and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period), and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period), and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period), and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application, receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period), and issuance of a final EIS.
On March 10, 2020, Commission staff circulated a&nbsp;final Programmatic Agreement (PA) for signatures from the Virginia and North Carolina State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO).&nbsp; On March 24, 2020, the North Carolina SHPO signed the final PA; however, on April 1, 2020, the Virginia SHPO declined to sign the final PA and provided comments.&nbsp; On April 10, 2020, Commission staff responded to the Virginia SHPO’s comments and recirculated the final PA for signature.&nbsp; The final PA was executed with the Virginia SHPO’s signature on May 17, 2020.
On March 10, 2020, Commission staff circulated a&nbsp;final Programmatic Agreement (PA) for signatures from the Virginia and North Carolina State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO).&nbsp; On March 24, 2020, the North Carolina SHPO signed the final PA; however, on April 1, 2020, the Virginia SHPO declined to sign the final PA and provided comments.&nbsp; On April 10, 2020, Commission staff responded to the Virginia SHPO’s comments and recirculated the final PA for signature.&nbsp; The final PA was executed with the Virginia SHPO’s signature on May 17, 2020.
On March 10, 2020, Commission staff circulated a&nbsp;final Programmatic Agreement (PA) for signatures from the Virginia and North Carolina State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO).&nbsp; On March 24, 2020, the North Carolina SHPO signed the final PA; however, on April 1, 2020, the Virginia SHPO declined to sign the final PA and provided comments.&nbsp; On April 10, 2020, Commission staff responded to the Virginia SHPO’s comments and recirculated the final PA for signature.&nbsp; The final PA was executed with the Virginia SHPO’s signature on May 17, 2020.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application and receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period).
USACE Norfolk District


The Norfolk and Wilmington&nbsp;Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize discharges of dredged and/or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of the proposed pipeline.&nbsp; At this time it appears that the project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #12, but the district will make such&nbsp;determination upon receipt of a complete permit application.&nbsp;

Application withdrawn by applicant on April 14, 2022.

&nbsp;
USACE Norfolk District


The Norfolk and Wilmington&nbsp;Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize discharges of dredged and/or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of the proposed pipeline.&nbsp; At this time it appears that the project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #12, but the district will make such&nbsp;determination upon receipt of a complete permit application.&nbsp;

Application withdrawn by applicant on April 14, 2022.

&nbsp;
USACE Norfolk District


The Norfolk and Wilmington&nbsp;Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize discharges of dredged and/or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of the proposed pipeline.&nbsp; At this time it appears that the project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #12, but the district will make such&nbsp;determination upon receipt of a complete permit application.&nbsp;

Application withdrawn by applicant on April 14, 2022.

&nbsp;
USACE Norfolk District


The Norfolk and Wilmington&nbsp;Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize discharges of dredged and/or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of the proposed pipeline.&nbsp; At this time it appears that the project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #12, but the district will make such&nbsp;determination upon receipt of a complete permit application.&nbsp;

Application withdrawn by applicant on April 14, 2022.

&nbsp;
In a letter dated August 16, 2019, Commission staff informed FWS that the draft EIS serves as the biological assessment for the project; however, due to incomplete surveys for listed species at the time of the draft EIS, Commission staff’s final biological assessment and request for concurrence would be provided with the final EIS.&nbsp; The final EIS, issued on February 14, 2020, included Commission staff’s final biological assessment and requested concurrence from FWS on determinations of effect for listed species potentially affected by the project.
In a letter dated August 16, 2019, Commission staff informed FWS that the draft EIS serves as the biological assessment for the project; however, due to incomplete surveys for listed species at the time of the draft EIS, Commission staff’s final biological assessment and request for concurrence would be provided with the final EIS.&nbsp; The final EIS, issued on February 14, 2020, included Commission staff’s final biological assessment and requested concurrence from FWS on determinations of effect for listed species potentially affected by the project.
In a letter dated August 16, 2019, Commission staff informed FWS that the draft EIS serves as the biological assessment for the project; however, due to incomplete surveys for listed species at the time of the draft EIS, Commission staff’s final biological assessment and request for concurrence would be provided with the final EIS.&nbsp; The final EIS, issued on February 14, 2020, included Commission staff’s final biological assessment and requested concurrence from FWS on determinations of effect for listed species potentially affected by the project.
In a letter dated August 16, 2019, Commission staff informed FWS that the draft EIS serves as the biological assessment for the project; however, due to incomplete surveys for listed species at the time of the draft EIS, Commission staff’s final biological assessment and request for concurrence would be provided with the final EIS.&nbsp; The final EIS, issued on February 14, 2020, included Commission staff’s final biological assessment and requested concurrence from FWS on determinations of effect for listed species potentially affected by the project.
The Wyoming Department of Transportation requires authorization to build access to the proposed reservoir from&nbsp;the state highway system
The Wyoming Department of Transportation requires authorization to build access to the proposed reservoir from&nbsp;the state highway system
The Wyoming Department of Transportation requires authorization to build access to the proposed reservoir from&nbsp;the state highway system
The Wyoming Department of Transportation requires authorization to build access to the proposed reservoir from&nbsp;the state highway system
The Wyoming Department of Transportation requires authorization to build access to the proposed reservoir from&nbsp;the state highway system
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to approve a Section 404 permit for the construction&nbsp;of the proposed reservoir and associated roads, and if so, under what terms and conditions.

&nbsp;
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to approve a Section 404 permit for the construction&nbsp;of the proposed reservoir and associated roads, and if so, under what terms and conditions.

&nbsp;
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to approve a Section 404 permit for the construction&nbsp;of the proposed reservoir and associated roads, and if so, under what terms and conditions.

&nbsp;
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to approve a Section 404 permit for the construction&nbsp;of the proposed reservoir and associated roads, and if so, under what terms and conditions.

&nbsp;
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and if so, under what conditions.Per EO 13807, the USACE may issue their 404 permit within 90 days of the BLM and USACE Joint Record of Decision, which is anticipated for September 27, 2019.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and if so, under what conditions.Per EO 13807, the USACE may issue their 404 permit within 90 days of the BLM and USACE Joint Record of Decision, which is anticipated for September 27, 2019.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and if so, under what conditions.Per EO 13807, the USACE may issue their 404 permit within 90 days of the BLM and USACE Joint Record of Decision, which is anticipated for September 27, 2019.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and if so, under what conditions.Per EO 13807, the USACE may issue their 404 permit within 90 days of the BLM and USACE Joint Record of Decision, which is anticipated for September 27, 2019.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands.
USACE Wilmington&nbsp;District


The Norfolk and Wilmington&nbsp;Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize discharges of dredged and/or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of the proposed pipeline.&nbsp; At this time it appears that the project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #12 but the district will made such determination upon receipt of a complete permit application.&nbsp;

Application withdrawn by applicant on April 14, 2022.
USACE Wilmington&nbsp;District


The Norfolk and Wilmington&nbsp;Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize discharges of dredged and/or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of the proposed pipeline.&nbsp; At this time it appears that the project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #12 but the district will made such determination upon receipt of a complete permit application.&nbsp;

Application withdrawn by applicant on April 14, 2022.
USACE Wilmington&nbsp;District


The Norfolk and Wilmington&nbsp;Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize discharges of dredged and/or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of the proposed pipeline.&nbsp; At this time it appears that the project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #12 but the district will made such determination upon receipt of a complete permit application.&nbsp;

Application withdrawn by applicant on April 14, 2022.
USACE Wilmington&nbsp;District


The Norfolk and Wilmington&nbsp;Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are processing applications for Department of the Army permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize discharges of dredged and/or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of the proposed pipeline.&nbsp; At this time it appears that the project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #12 but the district will made such determination upon receipt of a complete permit application.&nbsp;

Application withdrawn by applicant on April 14, 2022.
The applicant submitted a Standard Individual Permit (SIP) application on 5 OCT 2020 to replace the original NWP12 PCN/application while the project was in Paused status.
The applicant submitted a Standard Individual Permit (SIP) application on 5 OCT 2020 to replace the original NWP12 PCN/application while the project was in Paused status.
The applicant submitted a Standard Individual Permit (SIP) application on 5 OCT 2020 to replace the original NWP12 PCN/application while the project was in Paused status.
The applicant submitted a Standard Individual Permit (SIP) application on 5 OCT 2020 to replace the original NWP12 PCN/application while the project was in Paused status.
Department of the Army authorization&nbsp;will be required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in the East River, a navigable water of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material into the waterway in conjunction with this project.

The permit decision was issued on 12 March 2020, 8 days ahead of schedule.

&nbsp;
Department of the Army authorization&nbsp;will be required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in the East River, a navigable water of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material into the waterway in conjunction with this project.

The permit decision was issued on 12 March 2020, 8 days ahead of schedule.

&nbsp;
Department of the Army authorization&nbsp;will be required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in the East River, a navigable water of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material into the waterway in conjunction with this project.

The permit decision was issued on 12 March 2020, 8 days ahead of schedule.

&nbsp;
Department of the Army authorization&nbsp;will be required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in the East River, a navigable water of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material into the waterway in conjunction with this project.

The permit decision was issued on 12 March 2020, 8 days ahead of schedule.

&nbsp;
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limtied to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan.
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limtied to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan.
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limtied to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan.
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limtied to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, ROD signed 30 days after completion of FEIS; Permission granted or denied concurrent with ROD.&nbsp;&nbsp;The District expects the ATR to be completed on 1/31/2023; however, it is contingent on receipt of all required documentation stated in EC 1165-2-216 from the Project Sponsor with the exception of environmental compliance and NEPA, which will be completed following the 30-day period required by 40 CFR 1506.10 for the FEIS.&nbsp; USACE will review all other portions of the 408 package to ensure compliance with the aforementioned EC.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, ROD signed 30 days after completion of FEIS; Permission granted or denied concurrent with ROD.&nbsp;&nbsp;The District expects the ATR to be completed on 1/31/2023; however, it is contingent on receipt of all required documentation stated in EC 1165-2-216 from the Project Sponsor with the exception of environmental compliance and NEPA, which will be completed following the 30-day period required by 40 CFR 1506.10 for the FEIS.&nbsp; USACE will review all other portions of the 408 package to ensure compliance with the aforementioned EC.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, ROD signed 30 days after completion of FEIS; Permission granted or denied concurrent with ROD.&nbsp;&nbsp;The District expects the ATR to be completed on 1/31/2023; however, it is contingent on receipt of all required documentation stated in EC 1165-2-216 from the Project Sponsor with the exception of environmental compliance and NEPA, which will be completed following the 30-day period required by 40 CFR 1506.10 for the FEIS.&nbsp; USACE will review all other portions of the 408 package to ensure compliance with the aforementioned EC.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, ROD signed 30 days after completion of FEIS; Permission granted or denied concurrent with ROD.&nbsp;&nbsp;The District expects the ATR to be completed on 1/31/2023; however, it is contingent on receipt of all required documentation stated in EC 1165-2-216 from the Project Sponsor with the exception of environmental compliance and NEPA, which will be completed following the 30-day period required by 40 CFR 1506.10 for the FEIS.&nbsp; USACE will review all other portions of the 408 package to ensure compliance with the aforementioned EC.
Milestone&nbsp;dates are&nbsp;dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, ROD signed 30 days after completion of FEIS; Permission granted or denied concurrent with ROD.&nbsp;&nbsp;The District expects the ATR to be completed on 1/31/2023; however, it is contingent on receipt of all required documentation stated in EC 1165-2-216 from the Project Sponsor with the exception of environmental compliance and NEPA, which will be completed following the 30-day period required by 40 CFR 1506.10 for the FEIS.&nbsp; USACE will review all other portions of the 408 package to ensure compliance with the aforementioned EC.
Coordination pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act occurs from 10/9/2019 until the USACE issues its Record of Decision.
Coordination pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act occurs from 10/9/2019 until the USACE issues its Record of Decision.
Target completion for the decision to close EFH consultation and proceed or to elevate remaining issues to HQ level for resolution is within 10 days of receipt of the unsigned Record of Decision.
Target completion for the decision to close EFH consultation and proceed or to elevate remaining issues to HQ level for resolution is within 10 days of receipt of the unsigned Record of Decision.
Target completion for the decision to close EFH consultation and proceed or to elevate remaining issues to HQ level for resolution is within 10 days of receipt of the unsigned Record of Decision.
Target Completion for "Final NLAA/Biological Opinion Issued" is 6 months after all information is received and is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to complete ESA consultation.
Target Completion for "Final NLAA/Biological Opinion Issued" is 6 months after all information is received and is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to complete ESA consultation.
Target Completion for "Final NLAA/Biological Opinion Issued" is 6 months after all information is received and is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to complete ESA consultation.
Target Completion for "Final NLAA/Biological Opinion Issued" is 6 months after all information is received and is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to complete ESA consultation.
The proposed project may affect pallid sturgeon, however, it cannot be determined at this time whether those impacts would result in a "likely" or "not likely to adversely affect" situation.&nbsp; Further consultation with the Louisiana Ecological Services Office is therefore necessary.&nbsp; The target date for final completion is 135 days after all information (a complete consultation package) is received.&nbsp; Conclusion of ESA consultation is dependent on FWS receiving a complete BA.
The proposed project may affect pallid sturgeon, however, it cannot be determined at this time whether those impacts would result in a "likely" or "not likely to adversely affect" situation.&nbsp; Further consultation with the Louisiana Ecological Services Office is therefore necessary.&nbsp; The target date for final completion is 135 days after all information (a complete consultation package) is received.&nbsp; Conclusion of ESA consultation is dependent on FWS receiving a complete BA.
The proposed project may affect pallid sturgeon, however, it cannot be determined at this time whether those impacts would result in a "likely" or "not likely to adversely affect" situation.&nbsp; Further consultation with the Louisiana Ecological Services Office is therefore necessary.&nbsp; The target date for final completion is 135 days after all information (a complete consultation package) is received.&nbsp; Conclusion of ESA consultation is dependent on FWS receiving a complete BA.
The proposed project may affect pallid sturgeon, however, it cannot be determined at this time whether those impacts would result in a "likely" or "not likely to adversely affect" situation.&nbsp; Further consultation with the Louisiana Ecological Services Office is therefore necessary.&nbsp; The target date for final completion is 135 days after all information (a complete consultation package) is received.&nbsp; Conclusion of ESA consultation is dependent on FWS receiving a complete BA.
SHPO:&nbsp; Louisiana
SHPO:&nbsp; Louisiana
SHPO:&nbsp; Louisiana
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
As directed by section 20201 of the Budget Act, NMFS will issue a waiver of the requirements under Sections 101(a) and 102(a) of the&nbsp;MMPA for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the Mid-Breton Sound Sediment Diversion, and Calcasieu Ship Channel Salinity Control Measures projects.
The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA), in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is studying transportation improvements along I-495 from south of the American Legion Bridge to MD 5, and along I-270 from I-495 to I-370, including the east and west I-270 Spurs, in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia.&nbsp; The study will evaluate alternatives to accommodate existing and future traffic, improve trip reliability, expand travel options, accommodate homeland security, and improve the movement of goods and services.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA), in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is studying transportation improvements along I-495 from south of the American Legion Bridge to MD 5, and along I-270 from I-495 to I-370, including the east and west I-270 Spurs, in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia.&nbsp; The study will evaluate alternatives to accommodate existing and future traffic, improve trip reliability, expand travel options, accommodate homeland security, and improve the movement of goods and services.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA), in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is studying transportation improvements along I-495 from south of the American Legion Bridge to MD 5, and along I-270 from I-495 to I-370, including the east and west I-270 Spurs, in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia.&nbsp; The study will evaluate alternatives to accommodate existing and future traffic, improve trip reliability, expand travel options, accommodate homeland security, and improve the movement of goods and services.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA), in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is studying transportation improvements along I-495 from south of the American Legion Bridge to MD 5, and along I-270 from I-495 to I-370, including the east and west I-270 Spurs, in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia.&nbsp; The study will evaluate alternatives to accommodate existing and future traffic, improve trip reliability, expand travel options, accommodate homeland security, and improve the movement of goods and services.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
The Las Vegas Field Office will work with the Nevada SHPO on developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), on the impacts to historic sites and effects to the Old Spanish National Historic Trail.
The Las Vegas Field Office will work with the Nevada SHPO on developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), on the impacts to historic sites and effects to the Old Spanish National Historic Trail.
The Las Vegas Field Office will work with the Nevada SHPO on developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), on the impacts to historic sites and effects to the Old Spanish National Historic Trail.
The final completion date is 135 days following the Consultation Initiation Date, and is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.&nbsp;
The final completion date is 135 days following the Consultation Initiation Date, and is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.&nbsp;
The final completion date is 135 days following the Consultation Initiation Date, and is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate formal ESA consultation.&nbsp;
The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation and presumes HUD includes a response to any EFH Conservation Recommendations in the EIS.
The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation and presumes HUD includes a response to any EFH Conservation Recommendations in the EIS.
The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation and presumes HUD includes a response to any EFH Conservation Recommendations in the EIS.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from downtown Seattle to West Seattle’s Alaska Junction area and Ballard’s Market Street area in Seattle, King County, Washington. The project is approximately 11.8 miles. It includes a mix of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel configurations and fourteen stations that serve the following areas: Alaska Junction, Avalon, Delridge, SODO, the sports stadiums, International District/Chinatown, Midtown, Westlake, Denny, South Lake Union, Seattle Center, Smith Cove, Interbay, and Ballard. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
BLM responded&nbsp;to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for 500 MW solar generation facility in Riverside County. The completion date of this action is&nbsp;the date the ROW grant was executed.
BLM responded&nbsp;to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for 500 MW solar generation facility in Riverside County. The completion date of this action is&nbsp;the date the ROW grant was executed.
BLM responded&nbsp;to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for 500 MW solar generation facility in Riverside County. The completion date of this action is&nbsp;the date the ROW grant was executed.
BLM responded&nbsp;to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for 500 MW solar generation facility in Riverside County. The completion date of this action is&nbsp;the date the ROW grant was executed.
BLM responded&nbsp;to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for 500 MW solar generation facility in Riverside County. The completion date of this action is&nbsp;the date the ROW grant was executed.
NOI 74 FR 61169 in 2009, DEIS NOA 75 FR 17765 in 2010, NOW FEIS FR 2011-11657 in 2011
NOI 74 FR 61169 in 2009, DEIS NOA 75 FR 17765 in 2010, NOW FEIS FR 2011-11657 in 2011
NOI 74 FR 61169 in 2009, DEIS NOA 75 FR 17765 in 2010, NOW FEIS FR 2011-11657 in 2011
NOI 74 FR 61169 in 2009, DEIS NOA 75 FR 17765 in 2010, NOW FEIS FR 2011-11657 in 2011
NOI 74 FR 61169 in 2009, DEIS NOA 75 FR 17765 in 2010, NOW FEIS FR 2011-11657 in 2011
NOI 74 FR 61169 in 2009, DEIS NOA 75 FR 17765 in 2010, NOW FEIS FR 2011-11657 in 2011
NOI 74 FR 61169 in 2009, DEIS NOA 75 FR 17765 in 2010, NOW FEIS FR 2011-11657 in 2011
NOI 74 FR 61169 in 2009, DEIS NOA 75 FR 17765 in 2010, NOW FEIS FR 2011-11657 in 2011
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Pacific Region will consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to federally listed species or critical habitat.&nbsp;
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Pacific Region will consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to federally listed species or critical habitat.&nbsp;
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Pacific Region will consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to federally listed species or critical habitat.&nbsp;
Bureau of Indian Affairs-Pacific Regioin will consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a Nationwide Permit for the Campo Wind Project.&nbsp; A separate Construction General Permit (CGP) may be required for this project to be issued by USEPA.
Bureau of Indian Affairs-Pacific Regioin will consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a Nationwide Permit for the Campo Wind Project.&nbsp; A separate Construction General Permit (CGP) may be required for this project to be issued by USEPA.
Bureau of Indian Affairs-Pacific Regioin will consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a Nationwide Permit for the Campo Wind Project.&nbsp; A separate Construction General Permit (CGP) may be required for this project to be issued by USEPA.
Bureau of Indian Affairs-Pacific Regioin will consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a Nationwide Permit for the Campo Wind Project.&nbsp; A separate Construction General Permit (CGP) may be required for this project to be issued by USEPA.
The Commission issues a decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the issuance of a final EIS, resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Commission issues a decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the issuance of a final EIS, resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Commission issues a decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the issuance of a final EIS, resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Commission issues a decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the issuance of a final EIS, resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Commission issues a decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the issuance of a final EIS, resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on a license application under the Federal Power Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The Record of Decision is dependent on the resolution of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and issuance of a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp;

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Execution of any applicable agreement document (e.g., Programmatic Agreement) to satisfy the Commission’s responsibilities under section 106 would require the signature of the New York State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if applicable.&nbsp; Implementation of any agreement document would be required in any license order issued for the project.&nbsp;&nbsp;On June 28, 2019, Commission staff issued a letter conveying a draft Programmatic Agreement for comment.

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
Execution of any applicable agreement document (e.g., Programmatic Agreement) to satisfy the Commission’s responsibilities under section 106 would require the signature of the New York State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if applicable.&nbsp; Implementation of any agreement document would be required in any license order issued for the project.&nbsp;&nbsp;On June 28, 2019, Commission staff issued a letter conveying a draft Programmatic Agreement for comment.

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
Execution of any applicable agreement document (e.g., Programmatic Agreement) to satisfy the Commission’s responsibilities under section 106 would require the signature of the New York State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if applicable.&nbsp; Implementation of any agreement document would be required in any license order issued for the project.&nbsp;&nbsp;On June 28, 2019, Commission staff issued a letter conveying a draft Programmatic Agreement for comment.

As described in a letter issued February 25, 2020 (see https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=15469612), Commission staff have suspended further processing of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project until the project sponsor files information requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;
FWS requested additional information from the Commission on July 17, 2019.&nbsp; Commission staff facilitated an October 3, 2019 meeting to clarify FWS’s information requests.&nbsp; In its summary of this meeting, Commission staff recommended that the project sponsor provide information that FWS deemed necessary to initiate formal consultation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
FWS requested additional information from the Commission on July 17, 2019.&nbsp; Commission staff facilitated an October 3, 2019 meeting to clarify FWS’s information requests.&nbsp; In its summary of this meeting, Commission staff recommended that the project sponsor provide information that FWS deemed necessary to initiate formal consultation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
FWS requested additional information from the Commission on July 17, 2019.&nbsp; Commission staff facilitated an October 3, 2019 meeting to clarify FWS’s information requests.&nbsp; In its summary of this meeting, Commission staff recommended that the project sponsor provide information that FWS deemed necessary to initiate formal consultation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
FWS requested additional information from the Commission on July 17, 2019.&nbsp; Commission staff facilitated an October 3, 2019 meeting to clarify FWS’s information requests.&nbsp; In its summary of this meeting, Commission staff recommended that the project sponsor provide information that FWS deemed necessary to initiate formal consultation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
The Tacoma Dome Link Extension project proposed by Sound Transit would expand Link light rail from the Federal Way Transit Center in King County, Washington to the Tacoma Dome District area in Pierce County, Washington. The project is approximately 10 miles, and includes an elevated guideway and four new light rail stations in the following areas: South Federal Way, Fife, East Tacoma, and the Tacoma Dome District. Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at the South Federal Way and Fife stations. The project would provide a dependable and efficient connection along the corridor and respond to a growing number of transportation and community needs. In addition to build alternatives, the project will also consider a No Build alternative.
A Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 Clean&nbsp;Water Act&nbsp;permit was issued for the proposed work via a&nbsp;Standard Individual Permit&nbsp;on July 3,&nbsp;2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;In summer 2017, the permit decision&nbsp;was challenged in the DC District Court.&nbsp; In May&nbsp;2018, the DC District Court dismissed the case.&nbsp; Appeals were filed in&nbsp;June 2018.&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;March 2019, the DC Circuit&nbsp;Court&nbsp;of Appeals remanded the decision back to the District Court.&nbsp; Based on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the Corps is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for this project. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed prior to the expiration of the Sec. 10/404 permit; therefore, there is no need for a new permit application at this time.&nbsp;However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new permit application, should one be needed.&nbsp;This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
A Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 Clean&nbsp;Water Act&nbsp;permit was issued for the proposed work via a&nbsp;Standard Individual Permit&nbsp;on July 3,&nbsp;2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;In summer 2017, the permit decision&nbsp;was challenged in the DC District Court.&nbsp; In May&nbsp;2018, the DC District Court dismissed the case.&nbsp; Appeals were filed in&nbsp;June 2018.&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;March 2019, the DC Circuit&nbsp;Court&nbsp;of Appeals remanded the decision back to the District Court.&nbsp; Based on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the Corps is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for this project. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed prior to the expiration of the Sec. 10/404 permit; therefore, there is no need for a new permit application at this time.&nbsp;However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new permit application, should one be needed.&nbsp;This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
A Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 Clean&nbsp;Water Act&nbsp;permit was issued for the proposed work via a&nbsp;Standard Individual Permit&nbsp;on July 3,&nbsp;2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;In summer 2017, the permit decision&nbsp;was challenged in the DC District Court.&nbsp; In May&nbsp;2018, the DC District Court dismissed the case.&nbsp; Appeals were filed in&nbsp;June 2018.&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;March 2019, the DC Circuit&nbsp;Court&nbsp;of Appeals remanded the decision back to the District Court.&nbsp; Based on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the Corps is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for this project. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed prior to the expiration of the Sec. 10/404 permit; therefore, there is no need for a new permit application at this time.&nbsp;However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new permit application, should one be needed.&nbsp;This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
A Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 Clean&nbsp;Water Act&nbsp;permit was issued for the proposed work via a&nbsp;Standard Individual Permit&nbsp;on July 3,&nbsp;2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;In summer 2017, the permit decision&nbsp;was challenged in the DC District Court.&nbsp; In May&nbsp;2018, the DC District Court dismissed the case.&nbsp; Appeals were filed in&nbsp;June 2018.&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;March 2019, the DC Circuit&nbsp;Court&nbsp;of Appeals remanded the decision back to the District Court.&nbsp; Based on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the Corps is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for this project. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed prior to the expiration of the Sec. 10/404 permit; therefore, there is no need for a new permit application at this time.&nbsp;However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new permit application, should one be needed.&nbsp;This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
A Section 408 permission decision pursuant to 33 USC 408 was issued in June 2017. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed; therefore, there is no need for a new 408 permission&nbsp;application at this time. However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new Sec. 408 permission application, should one be needed. This page will be updated as more information becomes available.
A Section 408 permission decision pursuant to 33 USC 408 was issued in June 2017. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed; therefore, there is no need for a new 408 permission&nbsp;application at this time. However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new Sec. 408 permission application, should one be needed. This page will be updated as more information becomes available.
A Section 408 permission decision pursuant to 33 USC 408 was issued in June 2017. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed; therefore, there is no need for a new 408 permission&nbsp;application at this time. However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new Sec. 408 permission application, should one be needed. This page will be updated as more information becomes available.
A Section 408 permission decision pursuant to 33 USC 408 was issued in June 2017. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed; therefore, there is no need for a new 408 permission&nbsp;application at this time. However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new Sec. 408 permission application, should one be needed. This page will be updated as more information becomes available.
A Section 408 permission decision pursuant to 33 USC 408 was issued in June 2017. All authorized work and impacts have&nbsp;been completed; therefore, there is no need for a new 408 permission&nbsp;application at this time. However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new Sec. 408 permission application, should one be needed. This page will be updated as more information becomes available.
In July 2017,&nbsp;the Corps completed Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)&nbsp;requirements through the execution of an&nbsp;Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by the Corps, Dominion, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (on behalf of the National Park Service (NPS)), among other parties. The MOA, developed through the NHPA Section 106 consultation process, contained stipulations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the historic properties in proximity to the proposed project.&nbsp; The July 2017 MOA remains valid at this time.&nbsp; However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new Section 106 consultation process, should one be needed.&nbsp; This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
In July 2017,&nbsp;the Corps completed Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)&nbsp;requirements through the execution of an&nbsp;Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by the Corps, Dominion, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (on behalf of the National Park Service (NPS)), among other parties. The MOA, developed through the NHPA Section 106 consultation process, contained stipulations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the historic properties in proximity to the proposed project.&nbsp; The July 2017 MOA remains valid at this time.&nbsp; However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new Section 106 consultation process, should one be needed.&nbsp; This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
In July 2017,&nbsp;the Corps completed Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)&nbsp;requirements through the execution of an&nbsp;Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by the Corps, Dominion, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (on behalf of the National Park Service (NPS)), among other parties. The MOA, developed through the NHPA Section 106 consultation process, contained stipulations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the historic properties in proximity to the proposed project.&nbsp; The July 2017 MOA remains valid at this time.&nbsp; However, the Corps has provided preliminary target milestones for a new Section 106 consultation process, should one be needed.&nbsp; This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
TThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Endangered Species Act Consultation (DOI/FWS) Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
TThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Endangered Species Act Consultation (DOI/FWS) Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
TThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Endangered Species Act Consultation (DOI/FWS) Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Endangered Species Act Consultation (NOAA/NMFS) Permitting Timetable action Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Endangered Species Act Consultation (NOAA/NMFS) Permitting Timetable action Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Endangered Species Act Consultation (NOAA/NMFS) Permitting Timetable action Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Section 305 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Section 305 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Section 305 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Permits Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Permits Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Permits Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Permits Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Permits Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Permit Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Permit Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Permit Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Permit Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to cancel the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Permit Permitting Timetable action because requirements were previously fulfilled.&nbsp; If additional coordination/consultation is needed, the status and milestones will be changed as appropriate.
The requirements of&nbsp;the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act were fulfilled prior to issuance of the July 2017 Sec. 10 Rivers and Harbors Act/Sec. 404 Clean Water Act standard individual permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;The dates&nbsp;provided below are&nbsp;preliminary milestones for a new Wild and Scenic Rivers Act coordination process, should one be needed.&nbsp; This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
The requirements of&nbsp;the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act were fulfilled prior to issuance of the July 2017 Sec. 10 Rivers and Harbors Act/Sec. 404 Clean Water Act standard individual permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;The dates&nbsp;provided below are&nbsp;preliminary milestones for a new Wild and Scenic Rivers Act coordination process, should one be needed.&nbsp; This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
The requirements of&nbsp;the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act were fulfilled prior to issuance of the July 2017 Sec. 10 Rivers and Harbors Act/Sec. 404 Clean Water Act standard individual permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;The dates&nbsp;provided below are&nbsp;preliminary milestones for a new Wild and Scenic Rivers Act coordination process, should one be needed.&nbsp; This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
The requirements of&nbsp;the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act were fulfilled prior to issuance of the July 2017 Sec. 10 Rivers and Harbors Act/Sec. 404 Clean Water Act standard individual permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;The dates&nbsp;provided below are&nbsp;preliminary milestones for a new Wild and Scenic Rivers Act coordination process, should one be needed.&nbsp; This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
The requirements of&nbsp;the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act were fulfilled prior to issuance of the July 2017 Sec. 10 Rivers and Harbors Act/Sec. 404 Clean Water Act standard individual permit.&nbsp;&nbsp;The dates&nbsp;provided below are&nbsp;preliminary milestones for a new Wild and Scenic Rivers Act coordination process, should one be needed.&nbsp; This&nbsp;page will be updated as more information becomes available.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Pursuant to the Section 106 PA Stipulation X, Caltrans is currently consulting regarding project effects. Pursuant to Stipulation X.A of the Section 106 PA and 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), Caltrans has applied the Criteria of Adverse Effect, taking into account the presence of two historic properties that are next to and within the APE, and has reached a conclusion that a finding of No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions is appropriate for this undertaking, per Stipulation X.B.2.a of the Section 106 PA. By its letter and provided documentation, Caltrans is requesting SHPO concurrence with this stated finding.

&nbsp;

Pursuant to Stipulation X.B.2.b and 36 CFR 800.5(c)(1), after review of the submitted documentation, SHPO&nbsp;agrees&nbsp;that a finding of No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions is appropriate for this undertaking.
Pursuant to the Section 106 PA Stipulation X, Caltrans is currently consulting regarding project effects. Pursuant to Stipulation X.A of the Section 106 PA and 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), Caltrans has applied the Criteria of Adverse Effect, taking into account the presence of two historic properties that are next to and within the APE, and has reached a conclusion that a finding of No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions is appropriate for this undertaking, per Stipulation X.B.2.a of the Section 106 PA. By its letter and provided documentation, Caltrans is requesting SHPO concurrence with this stated finding.

&nbsp;

Pursuant to Stipulation X.B.2.b and 36 CFR 800.5(c)(1), after review of the submitted documentation, SHPO&nbsp;agrees&nbsp;that a finding of No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions is appropriate for this undertaking.
Pursuant to the Section 106 PA Stipulation X, Caltrans is currently consulting regarding project effects. Pursuant to Stipulation X.A of the Section 106 PA and 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), Caltrans has applied the Criteria of Adverse Effect, taking into account the presence of two historic properties that are next to and within the APE, and has reached a conclusion that a finding of No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions is appropriate for this undertaking, per Stipulation X.B.2.a of the Section 106 PA. By its letter and provided documentation, Caltrans is requesting SHPO concurrence with this stated finding.

&nbsp;

Pursuant to Stipulation X.B.2.b and 36 CFR 800.5(c)(1), after review of the submitted documentation, SHPO&nbsp;agrees&nbsp;that a finding of No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions is appropriate for this undertaking.
Issuing a Biological Opinion
Issuing a Biological Opinion
Issuing a Biological Opinion
HPSR to FIle per Section 106 PA. No consultation needed with SHPO.
HPSR to FIle per Section 106 PA. No consultation needed with SHPO.
HPSR to FIle per Section 106 PA. No consultation needed with SHPO.
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
The Corps cannot render a decision until the following actions are complete:&nbsp; EIS, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and Essential Fish Habitat compliance pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In addition, a Department of the Army permit cannot be issued until we receive: a Coastal Zone Management Act concurrence determination or presumed concurrence determination, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver, and a Section 408 compliance determination. Finally, we require a complete mitigation plan, and information regarding alternatives from the applicant prior to rendering a permit decision. Should submittal of any required information be delayed, the Corps will adjust its timeline accordingly. EPA concurrence for 103 permit.

&nbsp;
The Corps cannot render a decision until the following actions are complete:&nbsp; EIS, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and Essential Fish Habitat compliance pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In addition, a Department of the Army permit cannot be issued until we receive: a Coastal Zone Management Act concurrence determination or presumed concurrence determination, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver, and a Section 408 compliance determination. Finally, we require a complete mitigation plan, and information regarding alternatives from the applicant prior to rendering a permit decision. Should submittal of any required information be delayed, the Corps will adjust its timeline accordingly. EPA concurrence for 103 permit.

&nbsp;
The Corps cannot render a decision until the following actions are complete:&nbsp; EIS, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and Essential Fish Habitat compliance pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In addition, a Department of the Army permit cannot be issued until we receive: a Coastal Zone Management Act concurrence determination or presumed concurrence determination, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver, and a Section 408 compliance determination. Finally, we require a complete mitigation plan, and information regarding alternatives from the applicant prior to rendering a permit decision. Should submittal of any required information be delayed, the Corps will adjust its timeline accordingly. EPA concurrence for 103 permit.

&nbsp;
The Corps cannot render a decision until the following actions are complete:&nbsp; EIS, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and Essential Fish Habitat compliance pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In addition, a Department of the Army permit cannot be issued until we receive: a Coastal Zone Management Act concurrence determination or presumed concurrence determination, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver, and a Section 408 compliance determination. Finally, we require a complete mitigation plan, and information regarding alternatives from the applicant prior to rendering a permit decision. Should submittal of any required information be delayed, the Corps will adjust its timeline accordingly. EPA concurrence for 103 permit.

&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;
The BIA is approving the business lease between the Moapa Band and the solar company and granting a short length of ROW.&nbsp; BLM is granting ROW for the gen-tie.&nbsp;
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
This project was downsized to a categorical exclusion.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct, operate, and maintain an efficient, economic, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound solar-powered generating facility that will meet the requirements for the long-term wholesale purchase of renewable electric energy. The proposed project is responsive to federal and state renewable energy policies.&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose of and need for the proposed NEPA project, as presented in the scoping meetings, is as follows:&nbsp;The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed project is to respond to the proponent’s application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for a ROW grant to construct, operate, and decommission a solar generation and storage facility, including associated infrastructure in accordance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the proponent for the proposed project. The decision the BLM will make is whether or not to grant the ROW, and, if so, under what conditions.
Alteration and/or modification of a Federal Navigation Channel.
Alteration and/or modification of a Federal Navigation Channel.
Alteration and/or modification of a Federal Navigation Channel.
Alteration and/or modification of a Federal Navigation Channel.
Alteration and/or modification of a Federal Navigation Channel.
Section 7 Consultation with USFWS

Additional POC: Dawn Gardiner, Asst. Field Supervisor, 361/994-9005, x2631, Dawn_Gardiner@fws.gov
Section 7 Consultation with USFWS

Additional POC: Dawn Gardiner, Asst. Field Supervisor, 361/994-9005, x2631, Dawn_Gardiner@fws.gov
Section 7 Consultation with USFWS

Additional POC: Dawn Gardiner, Asst. Field Supervisor, 361/994-9005, x2631, Dawn_Gardiner@fws.gov
Section 7 Consultation with USFWS

Additional POC: Dawn Gardiner, Asst. Field Supervisor, 361/994-9005, x2631, Dawn_Gardiner@fws.gov
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat. ESA-listed species and critical habitat exist throughout much of the area affected by the Charleston Peninsula CFRM. The proposed action may affect these resources; therefore, Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat. ESA-listed species and critical habitat exist throughout much of the area affected by the Charleston Peninsula CFRM. The proposed action may affect these resources; therefore, Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat. ESA-listed species and critical habitat exist throughout much of the area affected by the Charleston Peninsula CFRM. The proposed action may affect these resources; therefore, Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat. ESA-listed species and critical habitat exist throughout much of the area affected by the Charleston Peninsula CFRM. The proposed action may affect these resources; therefore, Section 7 consultation is required.
Service will deliver a FWCA 2b report to the Corps for the project.
Service will deliver a FWCA 2b report to the Corps for the project.
Section 7 consultation on federal water development project. The FWS concurred with the Corps 10/16/20 determination of NLAA. The Milestones changed&nbsp;to reflect that the consultation concluded via informal, rather than formal, consultation.
Section 7 consultation on federal water development project. The FWS concurred with the Corps 10/16/20 determination of NLAA. The Milestones changed&nbsp;to reflect that the consultation concluded via informal, rather than formal, consultation.
Section 7 consultation on federal water development project. The FWS concurred with the Corps 10/16/20 determination of NLAA. The Milestones changed&nbsp;to reflect that the consultation concluded via informal, rather than formal, consultation.
Section 7 consultation on federal water development project. The FWS concurred with the Corps 10/16/20 determination of NLAA. The Milestones changed&nbsp;to reflect that the consultation concluded via informal, rather than formal, consultation.
The FWS provided the Corps a final Coordination Act Report on October 27, 2021. That report was finalized with the commitment from the Corps to complete additional hydrologic modeling and indirect effects analyses to validate or refine the initial findings in the EIS. The Service will review that information and provide a revised final Coordination Report to fufill the Secretary of the Interior's responsibilities under the Act.
The FWS provided the Corps a final Coordination Act Report on October 27, 2021. That report was finalized with the commitment from the Corps to complete additional hydrologic modeling and indirect effects analyses to validate or refine the initial findings in the EIS. The Service will review that information and provide a revised final Coordination Report to fufill the Secretary of the Interior's responsibilities under the Act.
Due to staffing changes/limitations, FWS will not complete a separate FWCA planning document for the project. This action was cancelled.
Due to staffing changes/limitations, FWS will not complete a separate FWCA planning document for the project. This action was cancelled.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout some of the area affected by the Charleston Peninsula CFRM study. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required. The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout some of the area affected by the Charleston Peninsula CFRM study. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required. The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout some of the area affected by the Charleston Peninsula CFRM study. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required. The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
NOI for the Limited Scope EIS was rescinded on 11/4/19.
NOI for the Limited Scope EIS was rescinded on 11/4/19.
NOI for the Limited Scope EIS was rescinded on 11/4/19.
NOI for the Limited Scope EIS was rescinded on 11/4/19.
NOI for the Limited Scope EIS was rescinded on 11/4/19.
NOI for the Limited Scope EIS was rescinded on 11/4/19.
NOI for the Limited Scope EIS was rescinded on 11/4/19.
NOI for the Limited Scope EIS was rescinded on 11/4/19.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for a wind energy facility. If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for a wind energy facility. If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for a wind energy facility. If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for a wind energy facility. If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands for a wind energy facility. If the BLM&nbsp;offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
Project will require verification of authorization under Nationwide Permit #14, Linear Transportation Projects.&nbsp;
Project will require verification of authorization under Nationwide Permit #14, Linear Transportation Projects.&nbsp;
Project will require verification of authorization under Nationwide Permit #14, Linear Transportation Projects.&nbsp;
Project will require verification of authorization under Nationwide Permit #14, Linear Transportation Projects.&nbsp;
The RapidRide Roosevelt Project (Project) is a partnership between the City of Seattle and King County Metro to implement a bus rapid transit (BRT) serving City of Seattle neighborhoods from Downtown to Roosevelt. The Project proposes to improve transit travel times, reliability, and capacity by providing high-frequency, all-day transit service and enhancing connections with other transit modes. The Project would provide 24-hour high-quality, electric trolley BRT service along an approximately 6-mile long corridor. It would include 26 new BRT stations and 2.3 miles of new transit lanes. The Project would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to BRT stations by providing 5 miles of new protected bicycle lanes and approximately 200 ADA-compliant curb ramps and other pedestrian improvements. Alternatives include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The RapidRide Roosevelt Project (Project) is a partnership between the City of Seattle and King County Metro to implement a bus rapid transit (BRT) serving City of Seattle neighborhoods from Downtown to Roosevelt. The Project proposes to improve transit travel times, reliability, and capacity by providing high-frequency, all-day transit service and enhancing connections with other transit modes. The Project would provide 24-hour high-quality, electric trolley BRT service along an approximately 6-mile long corridor. It would include 26 new BRT stations and 2.3 miles of new transit lanes. The Project would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to BRT stations by providing 5 miles of new protected bicycle lanes and approximately 200 ADA-compliant curb ramps and other pedestrian improvements. Alternatives include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The RapidRide Roosevelt Project (Project) is a partnership between the City of Seattle and King County Metro to implement a bus rapid transit (BRT) serving City of Seattle neighborhoods from Downtown to Roosevelt. The Project proposes to improve transit travel times, reliability, and capacity by providing high-frequency, all-day transit service and enhancing connections with other transit modes. The Project would provide 24-hour high-quality, electric trolley BRT service along an approximately 6-mile long corridor. It would include 26 new BRT stations and 2.3 miles of new transit lanes. The Project would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to BRT stations by providing 5 miles of new protected bicycle lanes and approximately 200 ADA-compliant curb ramps and other pedestrian improvements. Alternatives include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
for 10/2/20 Pause: Reclamation plans to refine design to better define a potential reservoir restriction during construction and associated mitigation plan based on public comments received on the Draft EIS.

Change from Pause to In-Progress:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
Update to un-pause:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
Update to un-pause:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
Update to un-pause:&nbsp;The Boise River Basin Feasibility Study EIS was un-paused on 4/8/2020 after an additional alternative was added. The project had been paused since 12/13/2019 due to an alternative in the EIS was found infeasible. Reclamation coordinated with our project partner/sponsor (Idaho Water Resource Board) prior to un-pausing of the project and was briefed on the updated target completion date. The delay will not have an effect on project permitting.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
The BLM issued a ROD on 5/3/2021.
Consultation with SHPO and native American tribes in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Consultation with SHPO and native American tribes in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Consultation with SHPO and native American tribes in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement and the National Historic Preservation Act.
This is a re-initiation of the EFH consultation that was completed on 8/16/19, based on additional information provided by HUD on 9/4/19. The re-initiation was concluded on 9/9/19.&nbsp;
This is a re-initiation of the EFH consultation that was completed on 8/16/19, based on additional information provided by HUD on 9/4/19. The re-initiation was concluded on 9/9/19.&nbsp;
This is a re-initiation of the EFH consultation that was completed on 8/16/19, based on additional information provided by HUD on 9/4/19. The re-initiation was concluded on 9/9/19.&nbsp;
The Vicksburg District Corps is currently evaluating the proposed project under Nationwide Permit 12 and is awaiting proof of mitigation. &nbsp;The applicant has paused the Corps&nbsp;review until it is ready to purchase mitigation. &nbsp;The target end date of October 21, 2017 will need to be adjusted accordingly once the applicant provides this information.
The Vicksburg District Corps is currently evaluating the proposed project under Nationwide Permit 12 and is awaiting proof of mitigation. &nbsp;The applicant has paused the Corps&nbsp;review until it is ready to purchase mitigation. &nbsp;The target end date of October 21, 2017 will need to be adjusted accordingly once the applicant provides this information.
The Vicksburg District Corps is currently evaluating the proposed project under Nationwide Permit 12 and is awaiting proof of mitigation. &nbsp;The applicant has paused the Corps&nbsp;review until it is ready to purchase mitigation. &nbsp;The target end date of October 21, 2017 will need to be adjusted accordingly once the applicant provides this information.
The Vicksburg District Corps is currently evaluating the proposed project under Nationwide Permit 12 and is awaiting proof of mitigation. &nbsp;The applicant has paused the Corps&nbsp;review until it is ready to purchase mitigation. &nbsp;The target end date of October 21, 2017 will need to be adjusted accordingly once the applicant provides this information.
This projected date remains contingent on the documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Corps is currently waiting for documentation from FERC demonstrating Section 7 and Section 106 compliance. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Corps expects to render a decision within two weeks. Should the final completion date require an additional revision the Corps will provide notice at the next quarterly update if we have not yet finalized our decision.&nbsp;Note, the Section 106 action and Section 7 actions have been paused so the Corps is pausing its action accordingly.&nbsp; When those actions resume, we will update our action with a new target date.
This projected date remains contingent on the documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Corps is currently waiting for documentation from FERC demonstrating Section 7 and Section 106 compliance. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Corps expects to render a decision within two weeks. Should the final completion date require an additional revision the Corps will provide notice at the next quarterly update if we have not yet finalized our decision.&nbsp;Note, the Section 106 action and Section 7 actions have been paused so the Corps is pausing its action accordingly.&nbsp; When those actions resume, we will update our action with a new target date.
This projected date remains contingent on the documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Corps is currently waiting for documentation from FERC demonstrating Section 7 and Section 106 compliance. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Corps expects to render a decision within two weeks. Should the final completion date require an additional revision the Corps will provide notice at the next quarterly update if we have not yet finalized our decision.&nbsp;Note, the Section 106 action and Section 7 actions have been paused so the Corps is pausing its action accordingly.&nbsp; When those actions resume, we will update our action with a new target date.
This projected date remains contingent on the documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Corps is currently waiting for documentation from FERC demonstrating Section 7 and Section 106 compliance. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Corps expects to render a decision within two weeks. Should the final completion date require an additional revision the Corps will provide notice at the next quarterly update if we have not yet finalized our decision.&nbsp;Note, the Section 106 action and Section 7 actions have been paused so the Corps is pausing its action accordingly.&nbsp; When those actions resume, we will update our action with a new target date.
The Louisville District has not received an application for the proposed project.&nbsp; In addition, compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to rendering a decision.&nbsp; The district expects to render a decision within 120 days of receiving a complete application, mitigation plan, and documentation from FERC that ESA and NHPA compliance is complete.
The Louisville District has not received an application for the proposed project.&nbsp; In addition, compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to rendering a decision.&nbsp; The district expects to render a decision within 120 days of receiving a complete application, mitigation plan, and documentation from FERC that ESA and NHPA compliance is complete.
The Louisville District has not received an application for the proposed project.&nbsp; In addition, compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to rendering a decision.&nbsp; The district expects to render a decision within 120 days of receiving a complete application, mitigation plan, and documentation from FERC that ESA and NHPA compliance is complete.
The Louisville District has not received an application for the proposed project.&nbsp; In addition, compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to rendering a decision.&nbsp; The district expects to render a decision within 120 days of receiving a complete application, mitigation plan, and documentation from FERC that ESA and NHPA compliance is complete.
The Vicksburg Corps District&nbsp;is currently evaluating the proposed project under Nationwide Permit 12 and is awaiting proof of mitigation. &nbsp;The applicant has paused the Corps&nbsp;review until it is ready to purchase mitigation. &nbsp;The Target End date of Oct. 31, 2017 is no longer valid and will need to be revised once the applicant resumes the process and provides the Corps with the information above.
The Vicksburg Corps District&nbsp;is currently evaluating the proposed project under Nationwide Permit 12 and is awaiting proof of mitigation. &nbsp;The applicant has paused the Corps&nbsp;review until it is ready to purchase mitigation. &nbsp;The Target End date of Oct. 31, 2017 is no longer valid and will need to be revised once the applicant resumes the process and provides the Corps with the information above.
The Vicksburg Corps District&nbsp;is currently evaluating the proposed project under Nationwide Permit 12 and is awaiting proof of mitigation. &nbsp;The applicant has paused the Corps&nbsp;review until it is ready to purchase mitigation. &nbsp;The Target End date of Oct. 31, 2017 is no longer valid and will need to be revised once the applicant resumes the process and provides the Corps with the information above.
The Vicksburg Corps District&nbsp;is currently evaluating the proposed project under Nationwide Permit 12 and is awaiting proof of mitigation. &nbsp;The applicant has paused the Corps&nbsp;review until it is ready to purchase mitigation. &nbsp;The Target End date of Oct. 31, 2017 is no longer valid and will need to be revised once the applicant resumes the process and provides the Corps with the information above.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands. The BLM will issue a Right of Way (ROW) if the EIS is approved for construction of a solar facility on approximately 3,000 acres of land.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands. The BLM will issue a Right of Way (ROW) if the EIS is approved for construction of a solar facility on approximately 3,000 acres of land.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands. The BLM will issue a Right of Way (ROW) if the EIS is approved for construction of a solar facility on approximately 3,000 acres of land.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands. The BLM will issue a Right of Way (ROW) if the EIS is approved for construction of a solar facility on approximately 3,000 acres of land.
BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.. The BLM must decide whether and under what conditions to grant a right-of-way for the portion of the project that would be constructed on BLM-managed lands. The BLM will issue a Right of Way (ROW) if the EIS is approved for construction of a solar facility on approximately 3,000 acres of land.
The 500MW/ac Yellow Pine Solar Project (YPSP), located on approximately 3,000 acres of public lands managed by the BLM, Southern Nevada District, Las Vegas Field Office. The YPSP would provide renewable energy to the electrical transmission grid at a newly constructed substation, the Trout Canyon Substation (TCS), owned by GridLiance West, LLC (GLW).
The 500MW/ac Yellow Pine Solar Project (YPSP), located on approximately 3,000 acres of public lands managed by the BLM, Southern Nevada District, Las Vegas Field Office. The YPSP would provide renewable energy to the electrical transmission grid at a newly constructed substation, the Trout Canyon Substation (TCS), owned by GridLiance West, LLC (GLW).
The 500MW/ac Yellow Pine Solar Project (YPSP), located on approximately 3,000 acres of public lands managed by the BLM, Southern Nevada District, Las Vegas Field Office. The YPSP would provide renewable energy to the electrical transmission grid at a newly constructed substation, the Trout Canyon Substation (TCS), owned by GridLiance West, LLC (GLW).
Coordination between FWS and BOR developed the following schedule:

Draft BA to FWS June 19, Draft BA back to BoR July 3rd, Final BA consultation package to FWS July 24, FWS transmittal of BO to BoR December 7.

As of 6/5/20, BoR is updating the EIS and BA so we've pushed dates out 2 weeks to allow FWS SOL&nbsp;for BA review and 135 days for formal consultation and delivery of the BO.
Coordination between FWS and BOR developed the following schedule:

Draft BA to FWS June 19, Draft BA back to BoR July 3rd, Final BA consultation package to FWS July 24, FWS transmittal of BO to BoR December 7.

As of 6/5/20, BoR is updating the EIS and BA so we've pushed dates out 2 weeks to allow FWS SOL&nbsp;for BA review and 135 days for formal consultation and delivery of the BO.
Coordination between FWS and BOR developed the following schedule:

Draft BA to FWS June 19, Draft BA back to BoR July 3rd, Final BA consultation package to FWS July 24, FWS transmittal of BO to BoR December 7.

As of 6/5/20, BoR is updating the EIS and BA so we've pushed dates out 2 weeks to allow FWS SOL&nbsp;for BA review and 135 days for formal consultation and delivery of the BO.
Coordination between FWS and BOR developed the following schedule:

Draft BA to FWS June 19, Draft BA back to BoR July 3rd, Final BA consultation package to FWS July 24, FWS transmittal of BO to BoR December 7.

As of 6/5/20, BoR is updating the EIS and BA so we've pushed dates out 2 weeks to allow FWS SOL&nbsp;for BA review and 135 days for formal consultation and delivery of the BO.
The decision to approve the project was made in the Record of Decision (7/23/2020), pending an approved appraisal and Right-of-Way Permit.
The decision to approve the project was made in the Record of Decision (7/23/2020), pending an approved appraisal and Right-of-Way Permit.
The decision to approve the project was made in the Record of Decision (7/23/2020), pending an approved appraisal and Right-of-Way Permit.
The decision to approve the project was made in the Record of Decision (7/23/2020), pending an approved appraisal and Right-of-Way Permit.
The decision to approve the project was made in the Record of Decision (7/23/2020), pending an approved appraisal and Right-of-Way Permit.
ESA Section 7 Consultation on the effects of the porposed Solar project on federally listed Desert tortoise. Action will include tortoise relocation to a nearby site.
ESA Section 7 Consultation on the effects of the porposed Solar project on federally listed Desert tortoise. Action will include tortoise relocation to a nearby site.
ESA Section 7 Consultation on the effects of the porposed Solar project on federally listed Desert tortoise. Action will include tortoise relocation to a nearby site.
ESA Section 7 Consultation on the effects of the porposed Solar project on federally listed Desert tortoise. Action will include tortoise relocation to a nearby site.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and if so, under what conditions.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and if so, under what conditions.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and if so, under what conditions.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether or not to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and if so, under what conditions.
For those areas within the alignment where both a Section 404 and Section 408 are required, the Section 408 must be issued first.&nbsp;
For those areas within the alignment where both a Section 404 and Section 408 are required, the Section 408 must be issued first.&nbsp;
For those areas within the alignment where both a Section 404 and Section 408 are required, the Section 408 must be issued first.&nbsp;
For those areas within the alignment where both a Section 404 and Section 408 are required, the Section 408 must be issued first.&nbsp;
For those areas within the alignment where both a Section 404 and Section 408 are required, the Section 408 must be issued first.&nbsp;
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act concurrently with its Record of Decision (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp; The order is dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Defense letters; and issuance of a final EIS.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
The Commission issues a Record of Decision concurrently with its decision on an application under the Natural Gas Act (i.e., the Commission’s order serves as its Record of Decision).&nbsp;&nbsp;The Record of Decision and some interim milestones are dependent on the receipt of any information requests needed to rectify an incomplete application; receipt of responses to any recommendations in a draft EIS (due by the end of the draft EIS comment period); receipt of any applicable U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Department of Defense letters.
If the project sponsor provides adequate survey information for Commission staff to make a determination of effects on historic properties, and Commission staff determine that authorizing the project would have an adverse effect on historic properties, Commission staff may seek to execute a section 106 agreement document prior to the Commission’s issuance of an order.&nbsp; Commission staff would coordinate with the applicable parties (including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer, and federally recognized tribes) to develop and execute any agreement document.&nbsp; However, there are no established timelines in the National Historic Preservation Act for the applicable parties to sign an agreement document to conclude the section 106 process.&nbsp;
If the project sponsor provides adequate survey information for Commission staff to make a determination of effects on historic properties, and Commission staff determine that authorizing the project would have an adverse effect on historic properties, Commission staff may seek to execute a section 106 agreement document prior to the Commission’s issuance of an order.&nbsp; Commission staff would coordinate with the applicable parties (including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer, and federally recognized tribes) to develop and execute any agreement document.&nbsp; However, there are no established timelines in the National Historic Preservation Act for the applicable parties to sign an agreement document to conclude the section 106 process.&nbsp;
If the project sponsor provides adequate survey information for Commission staff to make a determination of effects on historic properties, and Commission staff determine that authorizing the project would have an adverse effect on historic properties, Commission staff may seek to execute a section 106 agreement document prior to the Commission’s issuance of an order.&nbsp; Commission staff would coordinate with the applicable parties (including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer, and federally recognized tribes) to develop and execute any agreement document.&nbsp; However, there are no established timelines in the National Historic Preservation Act for the applicable parties to sign an agreement document to conclude the section 106 process.&nbsp;
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp; The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp; The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp; The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp; The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
DOE has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, Sections 3(a) and 3(c), for the permitting of natural gas exports from the United States.&nbsp; The application under Section 3(a) is before DOE and tied to the NEPA review at FERC.
Revised Description: &nbsp;Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 10/404 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; and the status of this project was changed back to In Progress. &nbsp;On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
Revised Description: &nbsp;Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 10/404 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; and the status of this project was changed back to In Progress. &nbsp;On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
Revised Description: &nbsp;Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 10/404 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; and the status of this project was changed back to In Progress. &nbsp;On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
Revised Description: &nbsp;Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance with, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 NHPA, Section 401 WQC, CUP, Section 408 permission, and if required, receipt of USACE approved mitigation plan. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 10/404 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; and the status of this project was changed back to In Progress. &nbsp;On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, and CUP. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 408 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; therefore, the status of this project should be changed back to "In Progress." On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, and CUP. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 408 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; therefore, the status of this project should be changed back to "In Progress." On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, and CUP. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 408 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; therefore, the status of this project should be changed back to "In Progress." On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, and CUP. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 408 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; therefore, the status of this project should be changed back to "In Progress." On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
Milestone dates are dependent upon compliance of, but not limited to, Section 7 of ESA, MMPA, Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 WQC, and CUP. &nbsp;On 02/30/2020, the status of the Section 408 evaluation was changed from "Planned" to "In Progress" after determining the permit application was complete. &nbsp;However, the applicant revised the permit application to include additional work not included in their previous permit application. &nbsp;Therefore, the project status was changed back to "Planned." &nbsp;MVN received a complete revised permit application on 04/8/2020; therefore, the status of this project should be changed back to "In Progress." On 5/12/2020, the project status was changed to "Paused" while the applicant prepared information needed for the review of the project. &nbsp;The Applicant provided FERC with the supplementary information needed to continue the development of the environmental document and FERC issued a Revised Schedule on 9/24/2021, therefore, the project status is now changed back to "In Progress".
ESA-listed species exist in the area affected by the proposed project and the proposed action has the potential to&nbsp;affect these resources.&nbsp; Therefore, ESA Section 7 consultation is required. The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate consultation.&nbsp; Formal consultation requires at least 135 days following the consultation initiation date.&nbsp;
ESA-listed species exist in the area affected by the proposed project and the proposed action has the potential to&nbsp;affect these resources.&nbsp; Therefore, ESA Section 7 consultation is required. The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate consultation.&nbsp; Formal consultation requires at least 135 days following the consultation initiation date.&nbsp;
ESA-listed species exist in the area affected by the proposed project and the proposed action has the potential to&nbsp;affect these resources.&nbsp; Therefore, ESA Section 7 consultation is required. The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate consultation.&nbsp; Formal consultation requires at least 135 days following the consultation initiation date.&nbsp;
ESA-listed species exist in the area affected by the proposed project and the proposed action has the potential to&nbsp;affect these resources.&nbsp; Therefore, ESA Section 7 consultation is required. The final completion date is contingent upon NMFS receiving sufficient information to initiate consultation.&nbsp; Formal consultation requires at least 135 days following the consultation initiation date.&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization.&nbsp;Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).&nbsp;
In May 2019, TRC, on behalf of Commonwealth LNG, LLC, requested ESA section 7 consultation with the FWS.&nbsp; TRC served as FERC's non-federal representative for the consultation.&nbsp; On June 21, 2019, the Service concurred with TRC's determination that the proposed activities were not likely to adversely affected the federally listed&nbsp;West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Kemp’s ridley&nbsp; (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles , the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its designated critical habitat.&nbsp; FWS noted that there may be effects to the eastern black rail (Laterallus jamaicensus jamaicensus), which is proposed for listing, and provided conservation recommendations to avoid or minimize potential effects.&nbsp; Currently the FWS is evaluating a final rule to list the eastern black rail as federally threatened.&nbsp; If/when that listing occurs, the FWS will notify FERC and an ESA section 7 consultation action can be added to Dashboard, as appropriate, if NEPA has not been completed.
In May 2019, TRC, on behalf of Commonwealth LNG, LLC, requested ESA section 7 consultation with the FWS.&nbsp; TRC served as FERC's non-federal representative for the consultation.&nbsp; On June 21, 2019, the Service concurred with TRC's determination that the proposed activities were not likely to adversely affected the federally listed&nbsp;West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Kemp’s ridley&nbsp; (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles , the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its designated critical habitat.&nbsp; FWS noted that there may be effects to the eastern black rail (Laterallus jamaicensus jamaicensus), which is proposed for listing, and provided conservation recommendations to avoid or minimize potential effects.&nbsp; Currently the FWS is evaluating a final rule to list the eastern black rail as federally threatened.&nbsp; If/when that listing occurs, the FWS will notify FERC and an ESA section 7 consultation action can be added to Dashboard, as appropriate, if NEPA has not been completed.
In May 2019, TRC, on behalf of Commonwealth LNG, LLC, requested ESA section 7 consultation with the FWS.&nbsp; TRC served as FERC's non-federal representative for the consultation.&nbsp; On June 21, 2019, the Service concurred with TRC's determination that the proposed activities were not likely to adversely affected the federally listed&nbsp;West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Kemp’s ridley&nbsp; (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles , the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its designated critical habitat.&nbsp; FWS noted that there may be effects to the eastern black rail (Laterallus jamaicensus jamaicensus), which is proposed for listing, and provided conservation recommendations to avoid or minimize potential effects.&nbsp; Currently the FWS is evaluating a final rule to list the eastern black rail as federally threatened.&nbsp; If/when that listing occurs, the FWS will notify FERC and an ESA section 7 consultation action can be added to Dashboard, as appropriate, if NEPA has not been completed.
In May 2019, TRC, on behalf of Commonwealth LNG, LLC, requested ESA section 7 consultation with the FWS.&nbsp; TRC served as FERC's non-federal representative for the consultation.&nbsp; On June 21, 2019, the Service concurred with TRC's determination that the proposed activities were not likely to adversely affected the federally listed&nbsp;West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Kemp’s ridley&nbsp; (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles , the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its designated critical habitat.&nbsp; FWS noted that there may be effects to the eastern black rail (Laterallus jamaicensus jamaicensus), which is proposed for listing, and provided conservation recommendations to avoid or minimize potential effects.&nbsp; Currently the FWS is evaluating a final rule to list the eastern black rail as federally threatened.&nbsp; If/when that listing occurs, the FWS will notify FERC and an ESA section 7 consultation action can be added to Dashboard, as appropriate, if NEPA has not been completed.
An owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling LNG or LHG, or planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling LNG or LHG, where construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with a proposed facility or modification, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located, no later than the date that the owner or operator files a pre-filing request with FERC, but, in all cases, at least 1 year prior to the start of construction. The owner/operator must prepare or update a Waterway Suitability Assessment; after the COTP receives the LOI the COTP issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the Federal, State, or local government agencies having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation.
An owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling LNG or LHG, or planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling LNG or LHG, where construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with a proposed facility or modification, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located, no later than the date that the owner or operator files a pre-filing request with FERC, but, in all cases, at least 1 year prior to the start of construction. The owner/operator must prepare or update a Waterway Suitability Assessment; after the COTP receives the LOI the COTP issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the Federal, State, or local government agencies having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation.
An owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling LNG or LHG, or planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling LNG or LHG, where construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with a proposed facility or modification, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located, no later than the date that the owner or operator files a pre-filing request with FERC, but, in all cases, at least 1 year prior to the start of construction. The owner/operator must prepare or update a Waterway Suitability Assessment; after the COTP receives the LOI the COTP issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the Federal, State, or local government agencies having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation.
Chapter 401 Water Quality Certification (Dredge and Fill)

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.

&nbsp;
Chapter 401 Water Quality Certification (Dredge and Fill)

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.

&nbsp;
Chapter 401 Water Quality Certification (Dredge and Fill)

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.

&nbsp;
Chapter 401 Water Quality Certification (Dredge and Fill)

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.

&nbsp;
Chapter 401 Water Quality Certification (Dredge and Fill)

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.

&nbsp;
Based on the information provided and the conservation measures that have been incorporated into the proposed project description, USFWS concurs with Caltrans determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the vireo, plover and least tern.USFWS based their concurrence on the following: 1)protocol surveys for the vireo will be conducted within 1 year prior to project construction toensure that nesting habitat within territories will not be removed; 2) the suitable habitat that will beimpacted is not anticipated to significantly interfere with breeding, foraging and dispersal behaviors;and 3) construction activities will be modified to limit indirect affects to nearby natural areas. Inaddition, the project’s permanent and temporary impacts will be offset by restoration andconservation of habitat approved by the CFWO, which will contribute to the survival and recovery ofthe vireo, plover and least tern.
Based on the information provided and the conservation measures that have been incorporated into the proposed project description, USFWS concurs with Caltrans determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the vireo, plover and least tern.USFWS based their concurrence on the following: 1)protocol surveys for the vireo will be conducted within 1 year prior to project construction toensure that nesting habitat within territories will not be removed; 2) the suitable habitat that will beimpacted is not anticipated to significantly interfere with breeding, foraging and dispersal behaviors;and 3) construction activities will be modified to limit indirect affects to nearby natural areas. Inaddition, the project’s permanent and temporary impacts will be offset by restoration andconservation of habitat approved by the CFWO, which will contribute to the survival and recovery ofthe vireo, plover and least tern.
Based on the information provided and the conservation measures that have been incorporated into the proposed project description, USFWS concurs with Caltrans determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the vireo, plover and least tern.USFWS based their concurrence on the following: 1)protocol surveys for the vireo will be conducted within 1 year prior to project construction toensure that nesting habitat within territories will not be removed; 2) the suitable habitat that will beimpacted is not anticipated to significantly interfere with breeding, foraging and dispersal behaviors;and 3) construction activities will be modified to limit indirect affects to nearby natural areas. Inaddition, the project’s permanent and temporary impacts will be offset by restoration andconservation of habitat approved by the CFWO, which will contribute to the survival and recovery ofthe vireo, plover and least tern.
Based on this analysis, NMFS concurs with Caltrans that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect endangered SC steelhead or threatened East Pacific green sea turtle and designated critical habitats for these species.
Based on this analysis, NMFS concurs with Caltrans that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect endangered SC steelhead or threatened East Pacific green sea turtle and designated critical habitats for these species.
Based on this analysis, NMFS concurs with Caltrans that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect endangered SC steelhead or threatened East Pacific green sea turtle and designated critical habitats for these species.
In Washington, EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the Washington Department of Ecology, unless the permit is for federally-owned facilities or on tribal lands.
In Washington, EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the Washington Department of Ecology, unless the permit is for federally-owned facilities or on tribal lands.
In Washington, EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the Washington Department of Ecology, unless the permit is for federally-owned facilities or on tribal lands.
Determination of No Effect.
Determination of No Effect.
Determination of No Effect.
Determination of No Effect.
Per the District, Section 7 consultation no longer required. 3/18/21
Per the District, Section 7 consultation no longer required. 3/18/21
Per the District, Section 7 consultation no longer required. 3/18/21
Per the District, Section 7 consultation no longer required. 3/18/21
Initial Application: &nbsp;After discussion with NPS and SCPRT, it was decided that the Section 6(f) initiation letter would serve as the initial application.
Initial Application: &nbsp;After discussion with NPS and SCPRT, it was decided that the Section 6(f) initiation letter would serve as the initial application.
Initial Application: &nbsp;After discussion with NPS and SCPRT, it was decided that the Section 6(f) initiation letter would serve as the initial application.
Initial Application: &nbsp;After discussion with NPS and SCPRT, it was decided that the Section 6(f) initiation letter would serve as the initial application.
Initial Application: &nbsp;After discussion with NPS and SCPRT, it was decided that the Section 6(f) initiation letter would serve as the initial application.
USFWS has reviewed the information provided within the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (2017), the Natural Environmental Study (December 2015), and your informal initiation letter. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurs with your determination that the Project as described is not likely to adversely affect the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis, DSF), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus, LBV), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus, SWFL) or its designated critical habitat, Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae, SAS) or its designated critical habitat, and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus, SBKR) or its designated critical habitat, based on the results of focused surveys and provided conservation measures. We have determined that there will be no effect on LBV critical habitat, due to the fact designated critical habitat for this subspecies begins approximately 10-miles downstream of the Project footprint.
USFWS has reviewed the information provided within the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (2017), the Natural Environmental Study (December 2015), and your informal initiation letter. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurs with your determination that the Project as described is not likely to adversely affect the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis, DSF), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus, LBV), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus, SWFL) or its designated critical habitat, Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae, SAS) or its designated critical habitat, and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus, SBKR) or its designated critical habitat, based on the results of focused surveys and provided conservation measures. We have determined that there will be no effect on LBV critical habitat, due to the fact designated critical habitat for this subspecies begins approximately 10-miles downstream of the Project footprint.
USFWS has reviewed the information provided within the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (2017), the Natural Environmental Study (December 2015), and your informal initiation letter. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurs with your determination that the Project as described is not likely to adversely affect the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis, DSF), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus, LBV), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus, SWFL) or its designated critical habitat, Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae, SAS) or its designated critical habitat, and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus, SBKR) or its designated critical habitat, based on the results of focused surveys and provided conservation measures. We have determined that there will be no effect on LBV critical habitat, due to the fact designated critical habitat for this subspecies begins approximately 10-miles downstream of the Project footprint.
FWS concurred with a NLAA determination for 8&nbsp; species documented in a 4/1 BA and request for consultation.

Covered species were Bachman's warbler, piping plover, eastern black rail, West Indian&nbsp;Manatee, pondberry, Canby's dropwort, northern long-eared bat, and American wood stork.
FWS concurred with a NLAA determination for 8&nbsp; species documented in a 4/1 BA and request for consultation.

Covered species were Bachman's warbler, piping plover, eastern black rail, West Indian&nbsp;Manatee, pondberry, Canby's dropwort, northern long-eared bat, and American wood stork.
FWS concurred with a NLAA determination for 8&nbsp; species documented in a 4/1 BA and request for consultation.

Covered species were Bachman's warbler, piping plover, eastern black rail, West Indian&nbsp;Manatee, pondberry, Canby's dropwort, northern long-eared bat, and American wood stork.
FWS concurred with a NLAA determination for 8&nbsp; species documented in a 4/1 BA and request for consultation.

Covered species were Bachman's warbler, piping plover, eastern black rail, West Indian&nbsp;Manatee, pondberry, Canby's dropwort, northern long-eared bat, and American wood stork.
South Carolina Department of Health &amp; Environmental Control - Jurisdiction of Critical Areas, Critical Area Permitting, Air, and Section 401 Water Quality &amp; CZM consistency determinations; wetlands and streams expertise
South Carolina Department of Health &amp; Environmental Control - Jurisdiction of Critical Areas, Critical Area Permitting, Air, and Section 401 Water Quality &amp; CZM consistency determinations; wetlands and streams expertise
South Carolina Department of Health &amp; Environmental Control - Jurisdiction of Critical Areas, Critical Area Permitting, Air, and Section 401 Water Quality &amp; CZM consistency determinations; wetlands and streams expertise
South Carolina Department of Health &amp; Environmental Control - Jurisdiction of Critical Areas, Critical Area Permitting, Air, and Section 401 Water Quality &amp; CZM consistency determinations; wetlands and streams expertise
South Carolina Department of Health &amp; Environmental Control - Jurisdiction of Critical Areas, Critical Area Permitting, Air, and Section 401 Water Quality &amp; CZM consistency determinations; wetlands and streams expertise
Finding of No Historic Properties Affected processed under the Third Amended Programmatic Agreement among the FHWA, the Utah SHPO, the ACHP, the USACE Sacramento District, and the UDOT Regarding Section 106 Implementation for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects in the State of Utah.
Finding of No Historic Properties Affected processed under the Third Amended Programmatic Agreement among the FHWA, the Utah SHPO, the ACHP, the USACE Sacramento District, and the UDOT Regarding Section 106 Implementation for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects in the State of Utah.
Finding of No Historic Properties Affected processed under the Third Amended Programmatic Agreement among the FHWA, the Utah SHPO, the ACHP, the USACE Sacramento District, and the UDOT Regarding Section 106 Implementation for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects in the State of Utah.
The “Consultation initiated with SHPO/THPO” is the date of FRA’s February 25, 2010 letter to initiate formal government-to-government consultation with Tribes.&nbsp; The Section 106 consultation concluded date is the day SHPO signed the Fresno to Bakersfield Memorandum of Agreement on May 8, 2014.&nbsp;
The “Consultation initiated with SHPO/THPO” is the date of FRA’s February 25, 2010 letter to initiate formal government-to-government consultation with Tribes.&nbsp; The Section 106 consultation concluded date is the day SHPO signed the Fresno to Bakersfield Memorandum of Agreement on May 8, 2014.&nbsp;
The “Consultation initiated with SHPO/THPO” is the date of FRA’s February 25, 2010 letter to initiate formal government-to-government consultation with Tribes.&nbsp; The Section 106 consultation concluded date is the day SHPO signed the Fresno to Bakersfield Memorandum of Agreement on May 8, 2014.&nbsp;
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for theMountain Valley Project.The Huntington District, US Army&nbsp; Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently awaiting for documentation from FERC that requirements under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act are complete.&nbsp; This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7).&nbsp; The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District&nbsp; Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for theMountain Valley Project.The Huntington District, US Army&nbsp; Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently awaiting for documentation from FERC that requirements under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act are complete.&nbsp; This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7).&nbsp; The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District&nbsp; Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for theMountain Valley Project.The Huntington District, US Army&nbsp; Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently awaiting for documentation from FERC that requirements under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act are complete.&nbsp; This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7).&nbsp; The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District&nbsp; Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for theMountain Valley Project.The Huntington District, US Army&nbsp; Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently awaiting for documentation from FERC that requirements under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act are complete.&nbsp; This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7).&nbsp; The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District&nbsp; Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for theMountain Valley Project.&nbsp;The Huntington District, US Army&nbsp; Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently awaiting for documentation from FERC that requirements under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act are complete.&nbsp; The Corps expects to receive this documentation and information requested from the applicant prior to the 90 day Federal authorization decision deadline, as indicated by the FERC as 21 September 2017.&nbsp; Completion date is contingent on the receipt of all required information.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for theMountain Valley Project.&nbsp;The Huntington District, US Army&nbsp; Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently awaiting for documentation from FERC that requirements under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act are complete.&nbsp; The Corps expects to receive this documentation and information requested from the applicant prior to the 90 day Federal authorization decision deadline, as indicated by the FERC as 21 September 2017.&nbsp; Completion date is contingent on the receipt of all required information.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for theMountain Valley Project.&nbsp;The Huntington District, US Army&nbsp; Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently awaiting for documentation from FERC that requirements under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act are complete.&nbsp; The Corps expects to receive this documentation and information requested from the applicant prior to the 90 day Federal authorization decision deadline, as indicated by the FERC as 21 September 2017.&nbsp; Completion date is contingent on the receipt of all required information.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for theMountain Valley Project.&nbsp;The Huntington District, US Army&nbsp; Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently awaiting for documentation from FERC that requirements under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act are complete.&nbsp; The Corps expects to receive this documentation and information requested from the applicant prior to the 90 day Federal authorization decision deadline, as indicated by the FERC as 21 September 2017.&nbsp; Completion date is contingent on the receipt of all required information.
US Fish and Wildlife Service- The Virginia Field Office is lead for issuing a Biological opinion for htis project covering the Virginia and West Virginia field offices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Upon receipt of all relevant data required by 50 CFR 402.14(c), section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.14) allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service up to 90 days to conclude formal consultation and an additional 45 days to prepare the biological opinion, unless we mutually agree to an extension.
US Fish and Wildlife Service- The Virginia Field Office is lead for issuing a Biological opinion for htis project covering the Virginia and West Virginia field offices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Upon receipt of all relevant data required by 50 CFR 402.14(c), section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.14) allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service up to 90 days to conclude formal consultation and an additional 45 days to prepare the biological opinion, unless we mutually agree to an extension.
US Fish and Wildlife Service- The Virginia Field Office is lead for issuing a Biological opinion for htis project covering the Virginia and West Virginia field offices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Upon receipt of all relevant data required by 50 CFR 402.14(c), section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.14) allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service up to 90 days to conclude formal consultation and an additional 45 days to prepare the biological opinion, unless we mutually agree to an extension.
US&nbsp;Army Corp of Engineers - Norfolk DistrictThe target completion date is dependent on receipt of FERC's compliance with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA. The District expects to render a decision within 3 weeks of receiving this documentation.
US&nbsp;Army Corp of Engineers - Norfolk DistrictThe target completion date is dependent on receipt of FERC's compliance with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA. The District expects to render a decision within 3 weeks of receiving this documentation.
US&nbsp;Army Corp of Engineers - Norfolk DistrictThe target completion date is dependent on receipt of FERC's compliance with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA. The District expects to render a decision within 3 weeks of receiving this documentation.
US&nbsp;Army Corp of Engineers - Norfolk DistrictThe target completion date is dependent on receipt of FERC's compliance with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA. The District expects to render a decision within 3 weeks of receiving this documentation.
US&nbsp;Army Corp of Engineers - Norfolk DistrictThe target completion date is dependent on receipt of FERC's compliance with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA. The District expects to render a decision within 3 weeks of receiving this documentation.
US&nbsp;Army Corp of Engineers - Norfolk DistrictThe target completion date is dependent on receipt of FERC's compliance with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA. The District expects to render a decision within 3 weeks of receiving this documentation.
US&nbsp;Army Corp of Engineers - Norfolk DistrictThe target completion date is dependent on receipt of FERC's compliance with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA. The District expects to render a decision within 3 weeks of receiving this documentation.
US&nbsp;Army Corp of Engineers - Norfolk DistrictThe target completion date is dependent on receipt of FERC's compliance with Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA. The District expects to render a decision within 3 weeks of receiving this documentation.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Mountain Valley Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Mountain Valley Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Mountain Valley Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Mountain Valley Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Mountain Valley Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Mountain Valley Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Mountain Valley Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Mountain Valley Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District. &nbsp;The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to the Corps' Pittsburgh District rendering a decision. The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its decision prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to the Corps' Pittsburgh District rendering a decision. The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its decision prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to the Corps' Pittsburgh District rendering a decision. The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its decision prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Pittsburgh District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to the Corps' Pittsburgh District rendering a decision. The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its decision prior to the target completion date, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 and notifying the Corps of the final effects determinations.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). &nbsp;The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District &nbsp;Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). &nbsp;The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District &nbsp;Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). &nbsp;The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District &nbsp;Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.&nbsp;This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). &nbsp;The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District &nbsp;Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). &nbsp;The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District &nbsp;Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). &nbsp;The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District &nbsp;Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). &nbsp;The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District &nbsp;Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section 10/404 PCN Joint Application for the Equitrans Expansion&nbsp;Project.This projected target completion date remains contingent on the receipt of additional information requested of the applicant and documented completion and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). &nbsp;The Huntington District Corps anticipates receiving confirmation with regard to Section 106 and Section 7 prior to 29 December 2017. Upon receipt of confirmation, the Huntington District &nbsp;Corps expects to render a decision within three weeks.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section Section 408 Review for the Mountain Valley Project.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section Section 408 Review for the Mountain Valley Project.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section Section 408 Review for the Mountain Valley Project.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section Section 408 Review for the Mountain Valley Project.
US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington District Section Section 408 Review for the Mountain Valley Project.
This permit will be issued concurrently with the NPS ROW
This permit will be issued concurrently with the NPS ROW
This permit will be issued concurrently with the NPS ROW
This permit will be issued concurrently with the NPS ROW
This permit will be issued concurrently with the NPS ROW
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Chapter 91 License

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.
Chapter 91 License

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.
Chapter 91 License

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.
Chapter 91 License

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.
Chapter 91 License

MassDEP target dates are for informational purposes only.
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
FWS coordination
NH Department of Environmental Services Water Quality Certificate
NH Department of Environmental Services Water Quality Certificate
NH Department of Environmental Services Water Quality Certificate
NH Department of Environmental Services Water Quality Certificate
NH Department of Environmental Services Water Quality Certificate
FWCA input will be via technical assistance on the 404 permit per coordination guidance with FHWA.
&nbsp;
FWCA input will be via technical assistance on the 404 permit per coordination guidance with FHWA.
&nbsp;
CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
The applicant is requesting authorization under Nationwide Permit(s) 12 (Utility Line Activities) and 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) for the proposed discharge of fill material into ephemeral channels associated with the construction of 20-foot-wide access roads and 34-5 kilovolt underground electric collection lines associated with the construction of a solar facility.&nbsp; Under the proposed action, the applicant would permanently discharge fill material below the ordinary high water mark of ephemeral channels for the construction of five (5) single and complete linear road crossings, and temporarily impact ephemeral channels for the construction of the access roads, collector lines, and desert tortoise fencing.&nbsp; On August 20, 2020, at the request of the applicant, the Corps completed an approved jurisdictional determination, and determined that no waters of the U.S. occur on the proposed project site.&nbsp; On August 27, 2020, the Corps notified the applicant that because no waters of the U.S. occur on the project site, the proposed activities do not require a permit from the Corps.
The applicant is requesting authorization under Nationwide Permit(s) 12 (Utility Line Activities) and 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) for the proposed discharge of fill material into ephemeral channels associated with the construction of 20-foot-wide access roads and 34-5 kilovolt underground electric collection lines associated with the construction of a solar facility.&nbsp; Under the proposed action, the applicant would permanently discharge fill material below the ordinary high water mark of ephemeral channels for the construction of five (5) single and complete linear road crossings, and temporarily impact ephemeral channels for the construction of the access roads, collector lines, and desert tortoise fencing.&nbsp; On August 20, 2020, at the request of the applicant, the Corps completed an approved jurisdictional determination, and determined that no waters of the U.S. occur on the proposed project site.&nbsp; On August 27, 2020, the Corps notified the applicant that because no waters of the U.S. occur on the project site, the proposed activities do not require a permit from the Corps.
The applicant is requesting authorization under Nationwide Permit(s) 12 (Utility Line Activities) and 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) for the proposed discharge of fill material into ephemeral channels associated with the construction of 20-foot-wide access roads and 34-5 kilovolt underground electric collection lines associated with the construction of a solar facility.&nbsp; Under the proposed action, the applicant would permanently discharge fill material below the ordinary high water mark of ephemeral channels for the construction of five (5) single and complete linear road crossings, and temporarily impact ephemeral channels for the construction of the access roads, collector lines, and desert tortoise fencing.&nbsp; On August 20, 2020, at the request of the applicant, the Corps completed an approved jurisdictional determination, and determined that no waters of the U.S. occur on the proposed project site.&nbsp; On August 27, 2020, the Corps notified the applicant that because no waters of the U.S. occur on the project site, the proposed activities do not require a permit from the Corps.
The applicant is requesting authorization under Nationwide Permit(s) 12 (Utility Line Activities) and 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) for the proposed discharge of fill material into ephemeral channels associated with the construction of 20-foot-wide access roads and 34-5 kilovolt underground electric collection lines associated with the construction of a solar facility.&nbsp; Under the proposed action, the applicant would permanently discharge fill material below the ordinary high water mark of ephemeral channels for the construction of five (5) single and complete linear road crossings, and temporarily impact ephemeral channels for the construction of the access roads, collector lines, and desert tortoise fencing.&nbsp; On August 20, 2020, at the request of the applicant, the Corps completed an approved jurisdictional determination, and determined that no waters of the U.S. occur on the proposed project site.&nbsp; On August 27, 2020, the Corps notified the applicant that because no waters of the U.S. occur on the project site, the proposed activities do not require a permit from the Corps.
ESA review requirement completed under the programmatic agreement.
ESA review requirement completed under the programmatic agreement.
ESA review requirement completed under the programmatic agreement.
State of Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Act federal consistency review.

CZMA consistency review will be done by NOAA.
State of Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Act federal consistency review.

CZMA consistency review will be done by NOAA.
State of Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Act federal consistency review.

CZMA consistency review will be done by NOAA.
State of Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Act federal consistency review.

CZMA consistency review will be done by NOAA.
State of Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Act federal consistency review.

CZMA consistency review will be done by NOAA.
Washington State Department of Ecology - Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification
Washington State Department of Ecology - Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification
Washington State Department of Ecology - Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification
Washington State Department of Ecology - Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification
Washington State Department of Ecology - Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification
NWP 14 expected
NWP 14 expected
NWP 14 expected
NWP 14 expected
Rescinded in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020.
Rescinded in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020.
Rescinded in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020.
Rescinded in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020.
Rescinded in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020.
Rescinded in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020.
Rescinded in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020.
Rescinded in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020.
This will be a ESA section 7 consultation on the Lake Powell Pipeline Project. We anticipate the request for consultation to occur coincident with publication of the draft EIS for the project. At this time ESA consultation would conclude approximately 135 days from that date, or from receipt of a complete information package for the FWS.&nbsp; Consultaiton may be concluded earlier if formal consiltation is not required.
This will be a ESA section 7 consultation on the Lake Powell Pipeline Project. We anticipate the request for consultation to occur coincident with publication of the draft EIS for the project. At this time ESA consultation would conclude approximately 135 days from that date, or from receipt of a complete information package for the FWS.&nbsp; Consultaiton may be concluded earlier if formal consiltation is not required.
This will be a ESA section 7 consultation on the Lake Powell Pipeline Project. We anticipate the request for consultation to occur coincident with publication of the draft EIS for the project. At this time ESA consultation would conclude approximately 135 days from that date, or from receipt of a complete information package for the FWS.&nbsp; Consultaiton may be concluded earlier if formal consiltation is not required.
This will be a ESA section 7 consultation on the Lake Powell Pipeline Project. We anticipate the request for consultation to occur coincident with publication of the draft EIS for the project. At this time ESA consultation would conclude approximately 135 days from that date, or from receipt of a complete information package for the FWS.&nbsp; Consultaiton may be concluded earlier if formal consiltation is not required.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
The BLM received an application for a right-of-way grant for the project to be located on public lands. An environmental review of the project is currently in progress.&nbsp;BLM is responding to an application for a right-of-way on public lands. If the BLM offers a right-of-way grant to the applicant, the target date for this action will be the offer date of the right-of-way grant to the applicant for their signature.
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Tier 1 Level EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
The New York State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the FHWA, will prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act for the New York State (NYS) Route 5 (Buffalo Skyway) Project, located in Erie County, New York. &nbsp;The Buffalo Skyway/NYS Route 5 interchanges, approaches and infrastructure, extending 3.5 miles from Tifft Street to Church Street, occupy approximately 45 acres of land along the Buffalo waterfront.&nbsp; Over the past few decades, this area has undergone a substantial change in land use with a focus on recreational, mixed-use, and waterfront development.&nbsp; The purpose of the Project is to realign the existing transportation network to support existing and planned recreational, mixed-use, and waterfront development in the Buffalo Outer Harbor and Inner Harbor areas.&nbsp; The Project will also address the safety, operational, and capacity deficiencies of the highway connections that serve economic development areas and local communities within South Buffalo.
The New York State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the FHWA, will prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act for the New York State (NYS) Route 5 (Buffalo Skyway) Project, located in Erie County, New York. &nbsp;The Buffalo Skyway/NYS Route 5 interchanges, approaches and infrastructure, extending 3.5 miles from Tifft Street to Church Street, occupy approximately 45 acres of land along the Buffalo waterfront.&nbsp; Over the past few decades, this area has undergone a substantial change in land use with a focus on recreational, mixed-use, and waterfront development.&nbsp; The purpose of the Project is to realign the existing transportation network to support existing and planned recreational, mixed-use, and waterfront development in the Buffalo Outer Harbor and Inner Harbor areas.&nbsp; The Project will also address the safety, operational, and capacity deficiencies of the highway connections that serve economic development areas and local communities within South Buffalo.
The New York State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the FHWA, will prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act for the New York State (NYS) Route 5 (Buffalo Skyway) Project, located in Erie County, New York. &nbsp;The Buffalo Skyway/NYS Route 5 interchanges, approaches and infrastructure, extending 3.5 miles from Tifft Street to Church Street, occupy approximately 45 acres of land along the Buffalo waterfront.&nbsp; Over the past few decades, this area has undergone a substantial change in land use with a focus on recreational, mixed-use, and waterfront development.&nbsp; The purpose of the Project is to realign the existing transportation network to support existing and planned recreational, mixed-use, and waterfront development in the Buffalo Outer Harbor and Inner Harbor areas.&nbsp; The Project will also address the safety, operational, and capacity deficiencies of the highway connections that serve economic development areas and local communities within South Buffalo.
The New York State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the FHWA, will prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act for the New York State (NYS) Route 5 (Buffalo Skyway) Project, located in Erie County, New York. &nbsp;The Buffalo Skyway/NYS Route 5 interchanges, approaches and infrastructure, extending 3.5 miles from Tifft Street to Church Street, occupy approximately 45 acres of land along the Buffalo waterfront.&nbsp; Over the past few decades, this area has undergone a substantial change in land use with a focus on recreational, mixed-use, and waterfront development.&nbsp; The purpose of the Project is to realign the existing transportation network to support existing and planned recreational, mixed-use, and waterfront development in the Buffalo Outer Harbor and Inner Harbor areas.&nbsp; The Project will also address the safety, operational, and capacity deficiencies of the highway connections that serve economic development areas and local communities within South Buffalo.
Conduct Tier 1 Level ESA Consultation
Conduct Tier 1 Level ESA Consultation
Conduct Tier 1 Level ESA Consultation
Conduct Tier 1 Level ESA Consultation
ESA Tier 1 Level Review
ESA Tier 1 Level Review
ESA Tier 1 Level Review
ESA Tier 1 Level Review
Tier 1 Level FWCA 2(b) Review
Tier 1 Level FWCA 2(b) Review
Tier 1 EFH Consultation
Tier 1 EFH Consultation
Tier 1 EFH Consultation
Tier 1 Section 106 Review as per the execution of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with SHPO
Tier 1 Section 106 Review as per the execution of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with SHPO
Tier 1 Section 106 Review as per the execution of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with SHPO
The Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)&nbsp;Project is a proposed 14-mile transit route with stops between Union Depot in Lowertown Saint Paul and downtown White Bear Lake.
The Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)&nbsp;Project is a proposed 14-mile transit route with stops between Union Depot in Lowertown Saint Paul and downtown White Bear Lake.
The Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)&nbsp;Project is a proposed 14-mile transit route with stops between Union Depot in Lowertown Saint Paul and downtown White Bear Lake.
Secton 106 consultation
Secton 106 consultation
Secton 106 consultation
Section 7 consultation
Section 7 consultation
Section 7 consultation
Section 7 consultation
USACE Coordination
USACE Coordination
USACE Coordination
USACE Coordination
USACE Coordination
Coordination with USACE
Coordination with USACE
Coordination with USACE
Coordination with USACE
Coordination with USACE
Consultation with FWS for Section 7 concurrence
Consultation with FWS for Section 7 concurrence
Consultation with FWS for Section 7 concurrence
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
Right-of-Way Permit for pipeline and infrastructure (booster pump station)
Right-of-Way Permit for pipeline and infrastructure (booster pump station)
Right-of-Way Permit for pipeline and infrastructure (booster pump station)
Right-of-Way Permit for pipeline and infrastructure (booster pump station)
Right-of-Way Permit for pipeline and infrastructure (booster pump station)
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Commission issued&nbsp;a Record of Decision concurrent with a&nbsp;Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;
ESA Section 7 Consultation Milestones for NMFS Project #: SER-2017-18644
ESA Section 7 Consultation Milestones for NMFS Project #: SER-2017-18644
ESA Section 7 Consultation Milestones for NMFS Project #: SER-2017-18644
ESA Section 7 Consultation Milestones for NMFS Project #: SER-2017-18644
Hungtington District Section 10 and Section 404 review.
Hungtington District Section 10 and Section 404 review.
Hungtington District Section 10 and Section 404 review.
Hungtington District Section 10 and Section 404 review.
Huntington District Section 10 and Section 404 review.
Huntington District Section 10 and Section 404 review.
Huntington District Section 10 and Section 404 review.
Huntington District Section 10 and Section 404 review.
The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date.&nbsp; &nbsp;In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 23, pertaining to mitigation.
The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date.&nbsp; &nbsp;In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 23, pertaining to mitigation.
The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date.&nbsp; &nbsp;In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 23, pertaining to mitigation.
The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date.&nbsp; &nbsp;In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 23, pertaining to mitigation.
The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date. &nbsp;In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 23, pertaining to mitigation.
The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date. &nbsp;In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 23, pertaining to mitigation.
The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date. &nbsp;In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 23, pertaining to mitigation.
The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization prior to the target completion date. &nbsp;In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 23, pertaining to mitigation.
Corp Norfolk District -&nbsp; The district expects to render a decsion within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Norfolk District -&nbsp; The district expects to render a decsion within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Norfolk District -&nbsp; The district expects to render a decsion within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Norfolk District -&nbsp; The district expects to render a decsion within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Norfolk District - The district expects to render a decsion within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Norfolk District - The district expects to render a decsion within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Norfolk District - The district expects to render a decsion within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Norfolk District - The district expects to render a decsion within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Wilmington District -&nbsp; The district expects to render a decision within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Wilmington District -&nbsp; The district expects to render a decision within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Wilmington District -&nbsp; The district expects to render a decision within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Wilmington District -&nbsp; The district expects to render a decision within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Wilmington District - The district expects to render a decision within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Wilmington District - The district expects to render a decision within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Wilmington District - The district expects to render a decision within 45 days of receiving all required information.
Corp Wilmington District - The district expects to render a decision within 45 days of receiving all required information.
FWS will combine ESA consultations for VA, WV, NC and PA and issue a joint Biological Opinion for all actions.Once FERC has initiated formal consultation and provided all relevant data required by 50 CFR 402.14(c), section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.14) allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Virginia office&nbsp;up to 90 days to conclude formal consultation and an additional 45 days to prepare the biological opinion, unless we mutually agree to an extension.
FWS will combine ESA consultations for VA, WV, NC and PA and issue a joint Biological Opinion for all actions.Once FERC has initiated formal consultation and provided all relevant data required by 50 CFR 402.14(c), section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.14) allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Virginia office&nbsp;up to 90 days to conclude formal consultation and an additional 45 days to prepare the biological opinion, unless we mutually agree to an extension.
FWS will combine ESA consultations for VA, WV, NC and PA and issue a joint Biological Opinion for all actions.Once FERC has initiated formal consultation and provided all relevant data required by 50 CFR 402.14(c), section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.14) allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Virginia office&nbsp;up to 90 days to conclude formal consultation and an additional 45 days to prepare the biological opinion, unless we mutually agree to an extension.
The FWS BGEPA permit will be issued concurrently with the&nbsp;Service's Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion, however, the validity of the permit will be contingent upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) securing appropriate authorizations and agreements for activities conducted in the BGEPA permit action area, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization, the Service's Section 7 Biological Opinion, and Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act.A BGEPA permit should not be considered an authorization to proceed on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline alongside the FERC's certification.&nbsp; In the publication to the 2016 Eagle Permits Rule, the Service stated "an eagle incidental take permit only authorizes take of eagles; it is not a prerequisite or an authorization to construct and operate projects that will result in eagles being taken."
The FWS BGEPA permit will be issued concurrently with the&nbsp;Service's Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion, however, the validity of the permit will be contingent upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) securing appropriate authorizations and agreements for activities conducted in the BGEPA permit action area, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization, the Service's Section 7 Biological Opinion, and Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act.A BGEPA permit should not be considered an authorization to proceed on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline alongside the FERC's certification.&nbsp; In the publication to the 2016 Eagle Permits Rule, the Service stated "an eagle incidental take permit only authorizes take of eagles; it is not a prerequisite or an authorization to construct and operate projects that will result in eagles being taken."
The FWS BGEPA permit will be issued concurrently with the&nbsp;Service's Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion, however, the validity of the permit will be contingent upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) securing appropriate authorizations and agreements for activities conducted in the BGEPA permit action area, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization, the Service's Section 7 Biological Opinion, and Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act.A BGEPA permit should not be considered an authorization to proceed on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline alongside the FERC's certification.&nbsp; In the publication to the 2016 Eagle Permits Rule, the Service stated "an eagle incidental take permit only authorizes take of eagles; it is not a prerequisite or an authorization to construct and operate projects that will result in eagles being taken."
The FWS BGEPA permit will be issued concurrently with the&nbsp;Service's Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion, however, the validity of the permit will be contingent upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) securing appropriate authorizations and agreements for activities conducted in the BGEPA permit action area, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization, the Service's Section 7 Biological Opinion, and Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act.A BGEPA permit should not be considered an authorization to proceed on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline alongside the FERC's certification.&nbsp; In the publication to the 2016 Eagle Permits Rule, the Service stated "an eagle incidental take permit only authorizes take of eagles; it is not a prerequisite or an authorization to construct and operate projects that will result in eagles being taken."
The FWS BGEPA permit will be issued concurrently with the&nbsp;Service's Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion, however, the validity of the permit will be contingent upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) securing appropriate authorizations and agreements for activities conducted in the BGEPA permit action area, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization, the Service's Section 7 Biological Opinion, and Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act.A BGEPA permit should not be considered an authorization to proceed on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline alongside the FERC's certification.&nbsp; In the publication to the 2016 Eagle Permits Rule, the Service stated "an eagle incidental take permit only authorizes take of eagles; it is not a prerequisite or an authorization to construct and operate projects that will result in eagles being taken."
The US Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District is currently reviewing the "Supply Header Project" in addition to the ACP (see other listings of Section 404/Section 10 Actions.&nbsp;
The US Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District is currently reviewing the "Supply Header Project" in addition to the ACP (see other listings of Section 404/Section 10 Actions.&nbsp;
The US Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District is currently reviewing the "Supply Header Project" in addition to the ACP (see other listings of Section 404/Section 10 Actions.&nbsp;
The US Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District is currently reviewing the "Supply Header Project" in addition to the ACP (see other listings of Section 404/Section 10 Actions.&nbsp;
The estimated date to reach a final permit decision is highly conservative and based on the fact the Corps has not yet completed its evaluation of the submitted information to determine if the proposed project complies with the CWA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.&nbsp; Due to an additional alternative alignment being considered, an additional 30-day Public Notice began on 12/21/2016.&nbsp; Recently, the Project sponsor suggested another alignment shift.&nbsp; Thus, an additional public notice was sent out on March 31, 2017.&nbsp; In addition, the Corps has recently received a consultation request from a Native American Tribe and needs to receive all clearance letters for NHPA and ESA to ensure compliance with these two laws.
The estimated date to reach a final permit decision is highly conservative and based on the fact the Corps has not yet completed its evaluation of the submitted information to determine if the proposed project complies with the CWA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.&nbsp; Due to an additional alternative alignment being considered, an additional 30-day Public Notice began on 12/21/2016.&nbsp; Recently, the Project sponsor suggested another alignment shift.&nbsp; Thus, an additional public notice was sent out on March 31, 2017.&nbsp; In addition, the Corps has recently received a consultation request from a Native American Tribe and needs to receive all clearance letters for NHPA and ESA to ensure compliance with these two laws.
The estimated date to reach a final permit decision is highly conservative and based on the fact the Corps has not yet completed its evaluation of the submitted information to determine if the proposed project complies with the CWA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.&nbsp; Due to an additional alternative alignment being considered, an additional 30-day Public Notice began on 12/21/2016.&nbsp; Recently, the Project sponsor suggested another alignment shift.&nbsp; Thus, an additional public notice was sent out on March 31, 2017.&nbsp; In addition, the Corps has recently received a consultation request from a Native American Tribe and needs to receive all clearance letters for NHPA and ESA to ensure compliance with these two laws.
The estimated date to reach a final permit decision is highly conservative and based on the fact the Corps has not yet completed its evaluation of the submitted information to determine if the proposed project complies with the CWA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.&nbsp; Due to an additional alternative alignment being considered, an additional 30-day Public Notice began on 12/21/2016.&nbsp; Recently, the Project sponsor suggested another alignment shift.&nbsp; Thus, an additional public notice was sent out on March 31, 2017.&nbsp; In addition, the Corps has recently received a consultation request from a Native American Tribe and needs to receive all clearance letters for NHPA and ESA to ensure compliance with these two laws.
The estimated date to reach a final permit decision is highly conservative and based on the fact the Corps has not yet completed its evaluation of the submitted information to determine if the proposed project complies with the CWA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.&nbsp; Due to an additional alternative alignment being considered, an additional 30-day Public Notice began on 12/21/2016.&nbsp; Recently, the Project sponsor suggested another alignment shift.&nbsp; Thus, an additional public notice was sent out on March 31, 2017.&nbsp; In addition, the Corps has recently received a consultation request from a Native American Tribe and needs to receive all clearance letters for NHPA and ESA to ensure compliance with these two laws.
The estimated date to reach a final permit decision is highly conservative and based on the fact the Corps has not yet completed its evaluation of the submitted information to determine if the proposed project complies with the CWA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.&nbsp; Due to an additional alternative alignment being considered, an additional 30-day Public Notice began on 12/21/2016.&nbsp; Recently, the Project sponsor suggested another alignment shift.&nbsp; Thus, an additional public notice was sent out on March 31, 2017.&nbsp; In addition, the Corps has recently received a consultation request from a Native American Tribe and needs to receive all clearance letters for NHPA and ESA to ensure compliance with these two laws.
The estimated date to reach a final permit decision is highly conservative and based on the fact the Corps has not yet completed its evaluation of the submitted information to determine if the proposed project complies with the CWA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.&nbsp; Due to an additional alternative alignment being considered, an additional 30-day Public Notice began on 12/21/2016.&nbsp; Recently, the Project sponsor suggested another alignment shift.&nbsp; Thus, an additional public notice was sent out on March 31, 2017.&nbsp; In addition, the Corps has recently received a consultation request from a Native American Tribe and needs to receive all clearance letters for NHPA and ESA to ensure compliance with these two laws.
The estimated date to reach a final permit decision is highly conservative and based on the fact the Corps has not yet completed its evaluation of the submitted information to determine if the proposed project complies with the CWA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.&nbsp; Due to an additional alternative alignment being considered, an additional 30-day Public Notice began on 12/21/2016.&nbsp; Recently, the Project sponsor suggested another alignment shift.&nbsp; Thus, an additional public notice was sent out on March 31, 2017.&nbsp; In addition, the Corps has recently received a consultation request from a Native American Tribe and needs to receive all clearance letters for NHPA and ESA to ensure compliance with these two laws.
ESA consultation with FWS on amendment in Docket No. CP17-212-000. &nbsp;
ESA consultation with FWS on amendment in Docket No. CP17-212-000. &nbsp;
ESA consultation with FWS on amendment in Docket No. CP17-212-000. &nbsp;
FERC's order in Docket No. CP17-212-000 amended&nbsp;the certificate of public convenience and necessity that was issued on February 3, 2017 in Docket No. CP15-138-000. &nbsp;The amendment alters the pipeline route in Pennsylvania by shifting the centerline to the west to address landowner and Federal agency concerns, thereby adding approximately 1.6 miles to the route.
FERC's order in Docket No. CP17-212-000 amended&nbsp;the certificate of public convenience and necessity that was issued on February 3, 2017 in Docket No. CP15-138-000. &nbsp;The amendment alters the pipeline route in Pennsylvania by shifting the centerline to the west to address landowner and Federal agency concerns, thereby adding approximately 1.6 miles to the route.
FERC's order in Docket No. CP17-212-000 amended&nbsp;the certificate of public convenience and necessity that was issued on February 3, 2017 in Docket No. CP15-138-000. &nbsp;The amendment alters the pipeline route in Pennsylvania by shifting the centerline to the west to address landowner and Federal agency concerns, thereby adding approximately 1.6 miles to the route.
FERC's order in Docket No. CP17-212-000 amended&nbsp;the certificate of public convenience and necessity that was issued on February 3, 2017 in Docket No. CP15-138-000. &nbsp;The amendment alters the pipeline route in Pennsylvania by shifting the centerline to the west to address landowner and Federal agency concerns, thereby adding approximately 1.6 miles to the route.
FERC's order in Docket No. CP17-212-000 amended&nbsp;the certificate of public convenience and necessity that was issued on February 3, 2017 in Docket No. CP15-138-000. &nbsp;The amendment alters the pipeline route in Pennsylvania by shifting the centerline to the west to address landowner and Federal agency concerns, thereby adding approximately 1.6 miles to the route.
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page from Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page from Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page from Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page from Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page from Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page from Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page from Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page from Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page of the&nbsp;Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf&nbsp;
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page of the&nbsp;Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf&nbsp;
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page of the&nbsp;Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf&nbsp;
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page of the&nbsp;Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf&nbsp;
A list of cooperating agencies can be&nbsp;found through either of the following links:Cover page of the&nbsp;Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73676/80924/002_Vol1-A_TitlePage.pdf &nbsp;OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chapter 6 (Consultation and Coordination) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/53044/73689/80937/013_Ch6_ConsultCoord.pdf&nbsp;
Update: &nbsp;Buffalo District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Buffalo District.&nbsp; The Corps' Buffalo District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update: &nbsp;Buffalo District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Buffalo District.&nbsp; The Corps' Buffalo District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update: &nbsp;Buffalo District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Buffalo District.&nbsp; The Corps' Buffalo District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update: &nbsp;Buffalo District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Buffalo District.&nbsp; The Corps' Buffalo District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update: &nbsp;Buffalo District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Buffalo District.&nbsp; The Corps' Buffalo District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update: &nbsp;Buffalo District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Buffalo District.&nbsp; The Corps' Buffalo District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update: &nbsp;Buffalo District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Buffalo District.&nbsp; The Corps' Buffalo District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update: &nbsp;Buffalo District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Buffalo District.&nbsp; The Corps' Buffalo District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update:&nbsp;&nbsp;Huntington District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Huntington District.
Update:&nbsp;&nbsp;Huntington District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Huntington District.
Update:&nbsp;&nbsp;Huntington District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Huntington District.
Update:&nbsp;&nbsp;Huntington District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Huntington District.
Update: &nbsp;Huntington District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Huntington District.
Update: &nbsp;Huntington District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Huntington District.
Update: &nbsp;Huntington District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Huntington District.
Update: &nbsp;Huntington District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Huntington District.
Update:&nbsp;&nbsp;Pittsburgh District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District.&nbsp; The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update:&nbsp;&nbsp;Pittsburgh District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District.&nbsp; The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update:&nbsp;&nbsp;Pittsburgh District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District.&nbsp; The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
Update:&nbsp;&nbsp;Pittsburgh District received FERC's Section 106 compliance documents on August 9, 2017. &nbsp;On June 22, 2017, the district notified FERC that the Target End date would need to be revised to December 31, 2017 since Section 106 information had not been provided and the agency had no time estimate for when it would be.Compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be documented prior to authorization by the Corps' Pittsburgh District.&nbsp; The Corps' Pittsburgh District does not object to issuing its authorization by 06/25/2017, contingent upon FERC completing section 7 and section 106 consultations and subsequently notifying the Corps.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (MI): &nbsp;Formal Consultation not required; the milestones indicated for this action are for Informal Consultation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (MI): &nbsp;Formal Consultation not required; the milestones indicated for this action are for Informal Consultation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (MI): &nbsp;Formal Consultation not required; the milestones indicated for this action are for Informal Consultation.
On 11/06/2013, the project sponsor requested that FERC put a hold on the licensing process, pending the resolution of issues pertaining to interconnection of the project to the transmission grid.&nbsp; The project sponsor filed a supplemental license application on 11/24/2015 to extend the proposed project transmission line by 11 miles.&nbsp; FERC staff issued an Additional Information Request on 04/06/2016, to obtain additional information from the project sponsor.&nbsp; Licensing was completed on 02/17/2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
On 11/06/2013, the project sponsor requested that FERC put a hold on the licensing process, pending the resolution of issues pertaining to interconnection of the project to the transmission grid.&nbsp; The project sponsor filed a supplemental license application on 11/24/2015 to extend the proposed project transmission line by 11 miles.&nbsp; FERC staff issued an Additional Information Request on 04/06/2016, to obtain additional information from the project sponsor.&nbsp; Licensing was completed on 02/17/2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
On 11/06/2013, the project sponsor requested that FERC put a hold on the licensing process, pending the resolution of issues pertaining to interconnection of the project to the transmission grid.&nbsp; The project sponsor filed a supplemental license application on 11/24/2015 to extend the proposed project transmission line by 11 miles.&nbsp; FERC staff issued an Additional Information Request on 04/06/2016, to obtain additional information from the project sponsor.&nbsp; Licensing was completed on 02/17/2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
On 11/06/2013, the project sponsor requested that FERC put a hold on the licensing process, pending the resolution of issues pertaining to interconnection of the project to the transmission grid.&nbsp; The project sponsor filed a supplemental license application on 11/24/2015 to extend the proposed project transmission line by 11 miles.&nbsp; FERC staff issued an Additional Information Request on 04/06/2016, to obtain additional information from the project sponsor.&nbsp; Licensing was completed on 02/17/2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
On 11/06/2013, the project sponsor requested that FERC put a hold on the licensing process, pending the resolution of issues pertaining to interconnection of the project to the transmission grid.&nbsp; The project sponsor filed a supplemental license application on 11/24/2015 to extend the proposed project transmission line by 11 miles.&nbsp; FERC staff issued an Additional Information Request on 04/06/2016, to obtain additional information from the project sponsor.&nbsp; Licensing was completed on 02/17/2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A formal Biological Assessment under section 7(a)(4) of the Endangered Species Act was submitted by FRA to the Texas Central US Fish and Wildlife (US FWS) office, containing a description of the proposed action area, addressed species, discussion of effects, and our effect determinations for the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia), interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), whooping crane (Grus americana), Houston toad (Anaxyrus houstonensis), Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), large-fruited sand verbena (Abronia marcocarpa), Navasota ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes parksii), and Texas prairie dawn (Hymenoxys texana).

FRA worked with the US FWS to complete the formal Section 7 consultation process, and is committed to the conservation of federally listed species identified in the US FWS Biological Opinion located over 10 counties in Texas, including Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris counties.




	United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion


&nbsp;
A formal Biological Assessment under section 7(a)(4) of the Endangered Species Act was submitted by FRA to the Texas Central US Fish and Wildlife (US FWS) office, containing a description of the proposed action area, addressed species, discussion of effects, and our effect determinations for the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia), interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), whooping crane (Grus americana), Houston toad (Anaxyrus houstonensis), Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), large-fruited sand verbena (Abronia marcocarpa), Navasota ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes parksii), and Texas prairie dawn (Hymenoxys texana).

FRA worked with the US FWS to complete the formal Section 7 consultation process, and is committed to the conservation of federally listed species identified in the US FWS Biological Opinion located over 10 counties in Texas, including Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris counties.




	United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion


&nbsp;
A formal Biological Assessment under section 7(a)(4) of the Endangered Species Act was submitted by FRA to the Texas Central US Fish and Wildlife (US FWS) office, containing a description of the proposed action area, addressed species, discussion of effects, and our effect determinations for the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia), interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), whooping crane (Grus americana), Houston toad (Anaxyrus houstonensis), Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), large-fruited sand verbena (Abronia marcocarpa), Navasota ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes parksii), and Texas prairie dawn (Hymenoxys texana).

FRA worked with the US FWS to complete the formal Section 7 consultation process, and is committed to the conservation of federally listed species identified in the US FWS Biological Opinion located over 10 counties in Texas, including Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris counties.




	United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion


&nbsp;
A formal Biological Assessment under section 7(a)(4) of the Endangered Species Act was submitted by FRA to the Texas Central US Fish and Wildlife (US FWS) office, containing a description of the proposed action area, addressed species, discussion of effects, and our effect determinations for the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia), interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), whooping crane (Grus americana), Houston toad (Anaxyrus houstonensis), Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), large-fruited sand verbena (Abronia marcocarpa), Navasota ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes parksii), and Texas prairie dawn (Hymenoxys texana).

FRA worked with the US FWS to complete the formal Section 7 consultation process, and is committed to the conservation of federally listed species identified in the US FWS Biological Opinion located over 10 counties in Texas, including Dallas, Ellis, Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris counties.




	United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion


&nbsp;
The LPP is a proposed 140-mile, 69-inch-diameter water delivery pipeline that begins at Lake Powell near Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Arizona, and ends at Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah. The pipeline would deliver up to 86,249 acre-feet of water from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir. UBWR proposes building the LPP in order to establish a second source of water to Washington and Kane Counties in Utah to meet future water demands, diversify the regional water supply portfolio, and enhance the reliability of the water supply. Two pipeline alignments have been proposed: the Southern Alternative and the Highway Alternative. Both alternatives begin and end in the same locations. The Southern Alternative would travel south of the Kaibab Indian Reservation. The Highway Alternative would cross lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, following Arizona State Route 389. Both proposed alternatives would cross federal, state, private, and tribal trust lands. In addition, UBWR has requested a water exchange contract with Reclamation wherein UBWR would forbear the diversion of a portion of the natural flows to which UBWR is entitled in exchange for depleting an equal amount of water released from Flaming Gorge Dam throughout the year and available at Lake Powell. This exchange contract would not entitle UBWR to call for releases from Flaming Gorge.
The LPP is a proposed 140-mile, 69-inch-diameter water delivery pipeline that begins at Lake Powell near Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Arizona, and ends at Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah. The pipeline would deliver up to 86,249 acre-feet of water from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir. UBWR proposes building the LPP in order to establish a second source of water to Washington and Kane Counties in Utah to meet future water demands, diversify the regional water supply portfolio, and enhance the reliability of the water supply. Two pipeline alignments have been proposed: the Southern Alternative and the Highway Alternative. Both alternatives begin and end in the same locations. The Southern Alternative would travel south of the Kaibab Indian Reservation. The Highway Alternative would cross lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, following Arizona State Route 389. Both proposed alternatives would cross federal, state, private, and tribal trust lands. In addition, UBWR has requested a water exchange contract with Reclamation wherein UBWR would forbear the diversion of a portion of the natural flows to which UBWR is entitled in exchange for depleting an equal amount of water released from Flaming Gorge Dam throughout the year and available at Lake Powell. This exchange contract would not entitle UBWR to call for releases from Flaming Gorge.
The LPP is a proposed 140-mile, 69-inch-diameter water delivery pipeline that begins at Lake Powell near Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Arizona, and ends at Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah. The pipeline would deliver up to 86,249 acre-feet of water from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir. UBWR proposes building the LPP in order to establish a second source of water to Washington and Kane Counties in Utah to meet future water demands, diversify the regional water supply portfolio, and enhance the reliability of the water supply. Two pipeline alignments have been proposed: the Southern Alternative and the Highway Alternative. Both alternatives begin and end in the same locations. The Southern Alternative would travel south of the Kaibab Indian Reservation. The Highway Alternative would cross lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, following Arizona State Route 389. Both proposed alternatives would cross federal, state, private, and tribal trust lands. In addition, UBWR has requested a water exchange contract with Reclamation wherein UBWR would forbear the diversion of a portion of the natural flows to which UBWR is entitled in exchange for depleting an equal amount of water released from Flaming Gorge Dam throughout the year and available at Lake Powell. This exchange contract would not entitle UBWR to call for releases from Flaming Gorge.
The LPP is a proposed 140-mile, 69-inch-diameter water delivery pipeline that begins at Lake Powell near Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Arizona, and ends at Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah. The pipeline would deliver up to 86,249 acre-feet of water from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir. UBWR proposes building the LPP in order to establish a second source of water to Washington and Kane Counties in Utah to meet future water demands, diversify the regional water supply portfolio, and enhance the reliability of the water supply. Two pipeline alignments have been proposed: the Southern Alternative and the Highway Alternative. Both alternatives begin and end in the same locations. The Southern Alternative would travel south of the Kaibab Indian Reservation. The Highway Alternative would cross lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, following Arizona State Route 389. Both proposed alternatives would cross federal, state, private, and tribal trust lands. In addition, UBWR has requested a water exchange contract with Reclamation wherein UBWR would forbear the diversion of a portion of the natural flows to which UBWR is entitled in exchange for depleting an equal amount of water released from Flaming Gorge Dam throughout the year and available at Lake Powell. This exchange contract would not entitle UBWR to call for releases from Flaming Gorge.
The LPP is a proposed 140-mile, 69-inch-diameter water delivery pipeline that begins at Lake Powell near Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Arizona, and ends at Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah. The pipeline would deliver up to 86,249 acre-feet of water from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir. UBWR proposes building the LPP in order to establish a second source of water to Washington and Kane Counties in Utah to meet future water demands, diversify the regional water supply portfolio, and enhance the reliability of the water supply. Two pipeline alignments have been proposed: the Southern Alternative and the Highway Alternative. Both alternatives begin and end in the same locations. The Southern Alternative would travel south of the Kaibab Indian Reservation. The Highway Alternative would cross lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, following Arizona State Route 389. Both proposed alternatives would cross federal, state, private, and tribal trust lands. In addition, UBWR has requested a water exchange contract with Reclamation wherein UBWR would forbear the diversion of a portion of the natural flows to which UBWR is entitled in exchange for depleting an equal amount of water released from Flaming Gorge Dam throughout the year and available at Lake Powell. This exchange contract would not entitle UBWR to call for releases from Flaming Gorge.
The Service will consult with the Corps concerning the possible effects of the proposed project on nesting sea turtles (5 species), piping plovers, red knots, crocodiles, loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat units LOGG-T-FL-16, LOGG-T-FL-15, and crocodile critical habitat.&nbsp;

As of 8/31/2020, the FWS has all of the information needed for formal&nbsp;ESA consultation and intends to provide the Corps with a&nbsp;biological opinion by March 1, 2021. The FWS and the Corps agree to extend the time for formal consultation beyond the standard 135 days, as allowed under the regulations.

&nbsp;
The Service will consult with the Corps concerning the possible effects of the proposed project on nesting sea turtles (5 species), piping plovers, red knots, crocodiles, loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat units LOGG-T-FL-16, LOGG-T-FL-15, and crocodile critical habitat.&nbsp;

As of 8/31/2020, the FWS has all of the information needed for formal&nbsp;ESA consultation and intends to provide the Corps with a&nbsp;biological opinion by March 1, 2021. The FWS and the Corps agree to extend the time for formal consultation beyond the standard 135 days, as allowed under the regulations.

&nbsp;
The Service will consult with the Corps concerning the possible effects of the proposed project on nesting sea turtles (5 species), piping plovers, red knots, crocodiles, loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat units LOGG-T-FL-16, LOGG-T-FL-15, and crocodile critical habitat.&nbsp;

As of 8/31/2020, the FWS has all of the information needed for formal&nbsp;ESA consultation and intends to provide the Corps with a&nbsp;biological opinion by March 1, 2021. The FWS and the Corps agree to extend the time for formal consultation beyond the standard 135 days, as allowed under the regulations.

&nbsp;
The Service will consult with the Corps concerning the possible effects of the proposed project on nesting sea turtles (5 species), piping plovers, red knots, crocodiles, loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat units LOGG-T-FL-16, LOGG-T-FL-15, and crocodile critical habitat.&nbsp;

As of 8/31/2020, the FWS has all of the information needed for formal&nbsp;ESA consultation and intends to provide the Corps with a&nbsp;biological opinion by March 1, 2021. The FWS and the Corps agree to extend the time for formal consultation beyond the standard 135 days, as allowed under the regulations.

&nbsp;
FWCA comments will be provided via NEPA and ESA coordination per 2/26/2020 Memo for the Record.
FWCA comments will be provided via NEPA and ESA coordination per 2/26/2020 Memo for the Record.
During a November 12, 2020, Interagency Call, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District&nbsp;informed NMFS that they decided to pursue a waiver to postpone completion of the ESA Section 7 consultation until the Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase of this project. The reason for pursuing this waiver was because necessary project details regarding floodgate designs and associated hydromodeling would not be available until the PED phase due to the unusual scope and complexity of proposed components of the Collier County CSRM study (e.g. floodgates, tide gates, unique and sensitive environmental conditions of the project area).
During a November 12, 2020, Interagency Call, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District&nbsp;informed NMFS that they decided to pursue a waiver to postpone completion of the ESA Section 7 consultation until the Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase of this project. The reason for pursuing this waiver was because necessary project details regarding floodgate designs and associated hydromodeling would not be available until the PED phase due to the unusual scope and complexity of proposed components of the Collier County CSRM study (e.g. floodgates, tide gates, unique and sensitive environmental conditions of the project area).
During a November 12, 2020, Interagency Call, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District&nbsp;informed NMFS that they decided to pursue a waiver to postpone completion of the ESA Section 7 consultation until the Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase of this project. The reason for pursuing this waiver was because necessary project details regarding floodgate designs and associated hydromodeling would not be available until the PED phase due to the unusual scope and complexity of proposed components of the Collier County CSRM study (e.g. floodgates, tide gates, unique and sensitive environmental conditions of the project area).
During a November 12, 2020, Interagency Call, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District&nbsp;informed NMFS that they decided to pursue a waiver to postpone completion of the ESA Section 7 consultation until the Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase of this project. The reason for pursuing this waiver was because necessary project details regarding floodgate designs and associated hydromodeling would not be available until the PED phase due to the unusual scope and complexity of proposed components of the Collier County CSRM study (e.g. floodgates, tide gates, unique and sensitive environmental conditions of the project area).
FWCA input will be via comments on NEPA documents.
FWCA input will be via comments on NEPA documents.
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
In compliance with the NEPA, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) Boundary Modification Act of 2017 (H.R. 2104 - Modification Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to reconsider the January 19, 2017 decision to approve a right-of-way (ROW) application for Segments 8 and 9 of the Gateway West 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project, including the land use plan amendments associated with the action alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIS. The BLM analyzed the impacts of the alternative(s) that it is reconsidering in the 2016 Gateway West Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 is located approximately 20 miles north of Columbus, Ohio the state capital. &nbsp;It is the only interchange for 10 miles in either direction on I-71 and provides a critical transportation link for the region. &nbsp;In Ohio, I-71 is a north-south interstate route connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 is a principal arterial that runs east-west across central Ohio.&nbsp; US 36/SR 37 connects the City of Delaware and points west with the Village of Sunbury and points east.&nbsp; Because of the constraints created by Alum Creek Reservoir, Hoover Reservoir, and the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines, US 36/SR 37 is one of the few east-west connections across Delaware County. &nbsp;Additionally, over time, many businesses have located along the US 36/SR 37 corridor, and given its proximity to the state capital and to nearby distribution and industrial centers in Delaware County, it has become a busy truck route.&nbsp; Today, over 32,000 vehicles a day access the interchange to enter or exit I-71. &nbsp;The proposed project will build a parallel alignment, which will be called Sunbury Parkway,&nbsp;south of the existing US 36/SR 37 Interchange.&nbsp;Additionally, a new interchange will be constructed at Sunbury Parkway and Interstate 71 that will connect with the existing interchange through collector/distributor roads. &nbsp;According to traffic projections, traffic will be diverted by the proposed new alignment such that the existing interchange and US 36/SR 37 will operate at acceptable levels of service.
The Forest Service will issue a Special Use permit for construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline on the Monongahela and George Washington national forests,&nbsp;following the signing of the final record of decision based on the FERC final environmental impact statement and necessary&nbsp;state and federal consultation.&nbsp;
The Forest Service will issue a Special Use permit for construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline on the Monongahela and George Washington national forests,&nbsp;following the signing of the final record of decision based on the FERC final environmental impact statement and necessary&nbsp;state and federal consultation.&nbsp;
The Forest Service will issue a Special Use permit for construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline on the Monongahela and George Washington national forests,&nbsp;following the signing of the final record of decision based on the FERC final environmental impact statement and necessary&nbsp;state and federal consultation.&nbsp;
The Forest Service will issue a Special Use permit for construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline on the Monongahela and George Washington national forests,&nbsp;following the signing of the final record of decision based on the FERC final environmental impact statement and necessary&nbsp;state and federal consultation.&nbsp;
The Forest Service will issue a Special Use permit for construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline on the Monongahela and George Washington national forests,&nbsp;following the signing of the final record of decision based on the FERC final environmental impact statement and necessary&nbsp;state and federal consultation.&nbsp;
Two separate permits must be issued by the NPS for crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway:&nbsp; a construction permit and a right-of-way permit.&nbsp; These permits are likely to be issued concurrently.
Two separate permits must be issued by the NPS for crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway:&nbsp; a construction permit and a right-of-way permit.&nbsp; These permits are likely to be issued concurrently.
Two separate permits must be issued by the NPS for crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway:&nbsp; a construction permit and a right-of-way permit.&nbsp; These permits are likely to be issued concurrently.
Two separate permits must be issued by the NPS for crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway:&nbsp; a construction permit and a right-of-way permit.&nbsp; These permits are likely to be issued concurrently.
Two separate permits must be issued by the NPS for crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway:&nbsp; a construction permit and a right-of-way permit.&nbsp; These permits are likely to be issued concurrently.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The project involves the construction of a pre-engineered, metal, general aviation hangar with adjoining buildings on three sides for workshops, offices, and storage space for ground support equipment (GSE). The project will be located on approximately eight acres of undeveloped airport land along Norcom Road by the approach end of Runway 24.Major elements of the project include:Aircraft hangar (± 40,000 square feet)Support space (± 15,000 square feet)Access roads w/ gates (main entrance and a deliveries entrance)Auto parking (±60 spaces)Aircraft parking ramp (±80,000 square feet)Access taxiways/signage (±900 linear feet, plus optional ±300)Aircraft fuel storage/handling (2 x 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tanks)Ancillary elements of the project include site preparation, utility connections, stormwater management, perimeter/security fencing and lighting.
The NOI to prepare an EIS was rescinded on January 24, 2017NOI cancellation can be viewed here: &nbsp;https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01544/notice-to-rescind-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-lone-star-regional&nbsp;
The NOI to prepare an EIS was rescinded on January 24, 2017NOI cancellation can be viewed here: &nbsp;https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01544/notice-to-rescind-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-lone-star-regional&nbsp;
The NOI to prepare an EIS was rescinded on January 24, 2017NOI cancellation can be viewed here: &nbsp;https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01544/notice-to-rescind-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-lone-star-regional&nbsp;
The NOI to prepare an EIS was rescinded on January 24, 2017NOI cancellation can be viewed here: &nbsp;https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01544/notice-to-rescind-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-lone-star-regional&nbsp;
The NOI to prepare an EIS was rescinded on January 24, 2017NOI cancellation can be viewed here: &nbsp;https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01544/notice-to-rescind-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-lone-star-regional&nbsp;
The NOI to prepare an EIS was rescinded on January 24, 2017NOI cancellation can be viewed here: &nbsp;https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01544/notice-to-rescind-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-lone-star-regional&nbsp;
The NOI to prepare an EIS was rescinded on January 24, 2017NOI cancellation can be viewed here: &nbsp;https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01544/notice-to-rescind-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-lone-star-regional&nbsp;
The NOI to prepare an EIS was rescinded on January 24, 2017NOI cancellation can be viewed here: &nbsp;https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01544/notice-to-rescind-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-lone-star-regional&nbsp;
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to extend its light rail system from Northgate Station in Seattle, WA north to Lynnwood Transit Center in Lynnwood. The 8.5-mile-long Preferred Alternative is a combination of at-grade and elevated guideway primarily within the Interstate 5 right of way, and at least three stations between the termini. This is the primary route serving a large and growing commuter market between Snohomish and King counties, and is part of the state's major north-south freeway. It is one of the most densely developing areas in the Pacific Northwest; roadways in the corridor experience high levels of congestion, degrading mobility and reliability.
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to extend its light rail system from Northgate Station in Seattle, WA north to Lynnwood Transit Center in Lynnwood. The 8.5-mile-long Preferred Alternative is a combination of at-grade and elevated guideway primarily within the Interstate 5 right of way, and at least three stations between the termini. This is the primary route serving a large and growing commuter market between Snohomish and King counties, and is part of the state's major north-south freeway. It is one of the most densely developing areas in the Pacific Northwest; roadways in the corridor experience high levels of congestion, degrading mobility and reliability.
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to extend its light rail system from Northgate Station in Seattle, WA north to Lynnwood Transit Center in Lynnwood. The 8.5-mile-long Preferred Alternative is a combination of at-grade and elevated guideway primarily within the Interstate 5 right of way, and at least three stations between the termini. This is the primary route serving a large and growing commuter market between Snohomish and King counties, and is part of the state's major north-south freeway. It is one of the most densely developing areas in the Pacific Northwest; roadways in the corridor experience high levels of congestion, degrading mobility and reliability.
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to extend its light rail system from Northgate Station in Seattle, WA north to Lynnwood Transit Center in Lynnwood. The 8.5-mile-long Preferred Alternative is a combination of at-grade and elevated guideway primarily within the Interstate 5 right of way, and at least three stations between the termini. This is the primary route serving a large and growing commuter market between Snohomish and King counties, and is part of the state's major north-south freeway. It is one of the most densely developing areas in the Pacific Northwest; roadways in the corridor experience high levels of congestion, degrading mobility and reliability.
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to extend its light rail system from Northgate Station in Seattle, WA north to Lynnwood Transit Center in Lynnwood. The 8.5-mile-long Preferred Alternative is a combination of at-grade and elevated guideway primarily within the Interstate 5 right of way, and at least three stations between the termini. This is the primary route serving a large and growing commuter market between Snohomish and King counties, and is part of the state's major north-south freeway. It is one of the most densely developing areas in the Pacific Northwest; roadways in the corridor experience high levels of congestion, degrading mobility and reliability.
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to extend its light rail system from Northgate Station in Seattle, WA north to Lynnwood Transit Center in Lynnwood. The 8.5-mile-long Preferred Alternative is a combination of at-grade and elevated guideway primarily within the Interstate 5 right of way, and at least three stations between the termini. This is the primary route serving a large and growing commuter market between Snohomish and King counties, and is part of the state's major north-south freeway. It is one of the most densely developing areas in the Pacific Northwest; roadways in the corridor experience high levels of congestion, degrading mobility and reliability.
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to extend its light rail system from Northgate Station in Seattle, WA north to Lynnwood Transit Center in Lynnwood. The 8.5-mile-long Preferred Alternative is a combination of at-grade and elevated guideway primarily within the Interstate 5 right of way, and at least three stations between the termini. This is the primary route serving a large and growing commuter market between Snohomish and King counties, and is part of the state's major north-south freeway. It is one of the most densely developing areas in the Pacific Northwest; roadways in the corridor experience high levels of congestion, degrading mobility and reliability.
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to extend its light rail system from Northgate Station in Seattle, WA north to Lynnwood Transit Center in Lynnwood. The 8.5-mile-long Preferred Alternative is a combination of at-grade and elevated guideway primarily within the Interstate 5 right of way, and at least three stations between the termini. This is the primary route serving a large and growing commuter market between Snohomish and King counties, and is part of the state's major north-south freeway. It is one of the most densely developing areas in the Pacific Northwest; roadways in the corridor experience high levels of congestion, degrading mobility and reliability.
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The proposed hangar redevelopment project consists of the following:● Demolition of existing buildings on the SheltAir leasehold (an approximately 13,000 square foot hangar, a 3,500 square foot hangar, and a 1,200 square foot block building);● Construction of a new approximately 23,000 square foot, single-story, pre-engineered aircraft hangar building and attached approximately 2,250 square foot space for offices, restrooms and other pilot services;● Rehabilitation of the existing apron for aircraft parking and a vehicular parking area with 57 parking spaces;● Stormwater infrastructure, lighting for aircraft and vehicular parking areas, and ancillary utility work; and● 625 square feet of office space to be constructed if needed at a future date in an area on the southwest corner of the proposed hangar building. The impact analysis of this development was included in the evaluations for the overall project.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The Proposed Action involves the construction of portions of new realigned Taxiways F and H; portions of existing pavement of Taxiways F and H will be removed and replaced with new realigned pavement to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI standard width of 82 feet.&nbsp; The realignment would facilitate new exit locations from Runway 4R-22L to reduce runway occupancy time and increase efficiency. The proposed action also includes new infiltration trenches to meet storm water management requirements and the replacement of the lighting systems associated with this project with LED fixtures.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
The proposed project consists of 5 separate ground-mounted solar photovoltaic arrays.&nbsp; Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on driven posts and each array will have associated electrical equipment (switchboard, transformer, DC recombiner, and inverter) mounted on a single concrete pad.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
Project involves removing existing Taxiway D and relocating it approximately 125’ southeast of its current location adjacent to Runway 34. Reconstruction of Taxiway G includes pavement rehabilitation and a reduction in width, from 75’ to 50’.
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
The Proposed Action involves the design and construction of a new&nbsp;ARFF Facility and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) building. The facilities are proposed within the same general vicinity of the existing structures within existing Airport property.&nbsp;
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
EA for 400ft runway extension, and safety areas
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Reconstruction of Runway 17C/35C, rehabilitation of Taxiway M, modification to the Taxiway M High-Speed Exit (HSE) fillets, and the construction of new east and west HSE taxiways
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Expansion of the existing United Airlines Ops Center Maintenance Facility at IAH to enable UAL to consolidate aircraft maintenance activities and its engineering staff at one central location.
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Obstruction removal on- and off-airport
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
Construction of two 80,000-barrel above ground fuel storage tanks at the existing JFK Bulk Fuel Farm.&nbsp;&nbsp; The two tanks will provide additional Jet A storage for the airport and will be connect to the existing underground hydrant system for distribution to the terminals.
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
An approx. 7500 SF expansion of existing Pennsylvania Institute of Aeronautics (PIA) facility.
	A new 30,000 square foot hangar to service the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC); this would be located immediately west of SNC’s current hangar at the Airport. An additional hangar and/or expansion, approximately 25,000 square feet is proposed in a second phase of development.
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 159
	Fee-simple acquisition of Parcel 160


Demolishing a 1500 SF residential building and 950 SF storage garage
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will be the removal of penetrations or near penetrations within the approach slopes to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of parcels in fee simple to allow for clearing approach to Runway 08/26. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from thirty-two (32) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 08. &nbsp;Acquisition of avigation easements from five (5) parcels to allow clearing approach to &nbsp;Runway 26. &nbsp;Removal of obstruction/penetrations within the: 34:1 Approach Surfaces Runway 08/26; 20:1 and 30:1 Approach Surfaces for Runway 08/26. &nbsp;
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Proposed Action will construct a new concourse and cargo area, Concourse G and &nbsp;Cargo 2A and 2B. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Concourse G is to provide gates that would accommodate growth of domestic and international arriving aircraft and passengers while simultaneously providing an improved level of service to these same passengers and airlines at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. &nbsp;The purpose of implementing Cargo Buildings 2A and 2B is to provide air cargo freighter and warehouse support facilities that accommodate growth of freighter demand at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Part of the Governor’s New York State Upstate Airport Program the project involves the development of an access road and parking to support a hotel/retail site.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Improvements Identified in the 2013 Airport Master Plan that will be undertaken with the five year timeframe&nbsp;are considered reasonably foreseeable.&nbsp; They are also considered justified and eligible and are on the five year CIP.Improvements include the Northeast Field Area grand and site preparation for hangar development, Bioswale construction in NE. Field area, Apron expansion, Hangar demolition, commercial hangar construction, taxilanes, RSA grading, runway and taxiway rehab, threshold relocation and obstruction removal.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Oak Leaf Energy Partners is proposing to lease approximately 11.6 acres&nbsp; from the Greeley-Weld County Airport to develop and construct a community solar facility.
Note for Section 404 Milestones:&nbsp; The Section 404 milestones are included as a contingency in the event an Individual 404 Permit is required by the USACE versus a Nationwide Permit, which requires no milestones.
Note for Section 404 Milestones:&nbsp; The Section 404 milestones are included as a contingency in the event an Individual 404 Permit is required by the USACE versus a Nationwide Permit, which requires no milestones.
Note for Section 404 Milestones:&nbsp; The Section 404 milestones are included as a contingency in the event an Individual 404 Permit is required by the USACE versus a Nationwide Permit, which requires no milestones.
Note for Section 404 Milestones:&nbsp; The Section 404 milestones are included as a contingency in the event an Individual 404 Permit is required by the USACE versus a Nationwide Permit, which requires no milestones.
Oregon International Port of Coos Bay (OIPCB) is requesting permission to deepen and widen the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Project from the ocean to river mile (RM) 8.2 near Coos Bay, Oregon, under 33 USC 408 (Section 408). The OIPCB's project would improve navigation efficiency, reduce shipping transportation costs, and facilitate the shipping industry's transition to larger, more efficient vessels. The Corps has determined the current proposal to alter the federal navigation channel will require the completion of a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR). The Corps considers the proposed project as a continuation of previous coordination under the FWCA for the Coos Bay Channel Deepening Project, authorized in September 6, 1994. 



Coos Bay Estuary supports a rich diversity of biological resources. Eelgrass supports an important community in Coos Bay. Of particular importance is the use of eelgrass beds as a nursery area by commercially important fishery organisms including salmon and Dungeness crab.&nbsp; 

Fish associated with the Coos Bay Estuary include Pacific herring, northern anchovies, smelt, starry flounder, English sole, sturgeon, striped bass, salmon and steelhead trout. Sand dab, sole, starry flounder, black rockfish, kelp greenling, and a variety of perch species are found in high numbers in Coos Bay during various aspects of their life cycles. Fall and spring chinook, coho, and chum salmon and winter and summer steelhead and searun cutthroat trout are present in Coos Bay during most of the year. 

About 250 species of birds are resident or regular visitors to the Coos Bay area. Coos Bay is an important resting and foraging area and wintering ground for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.&nbsp;
Oregon International Port of Coos Bay (OIPCB) is requesting permission to deepen and widen the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Project from the ocean to river mile (RM) 8.2 near Coos Bay, Oregon, under 33 USC 408 (Section 408). The OIPCB's project would improve navigation efficiency, reduce shipping transportation costs, and facilitate the shipping industry's transition to larger, more efficient vessels. The Corps has determined the current proposal to alter the federal navigation channel will require the completion of a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR). The Corps considers the proposed project as a continuation of previous coordination under the FWCA for the Coos Bay Channel Deepening Project, authorized in September 6, 1994. 



Coos Bay Estuary supports a rich diversity of biological resources. Eelgrass supports an important community in Coos Bay. Of particular importance is the use of eelgrass beds as a nursery area by commercially important fishery organisms including salmon and Dungeness crab.&nbsp; 

Fish associated with the Coos Bay Estuary include Pacific herring, northern anchovies, smelt, starry flounder, English sole, sturgeon, striped bass, salmon and steelhead trout. Sand dab, sole, starry flounder, black rockfish, kelp greenling, and a variety of perch species are found in high numbers in Coos Bay during various aspects of their life cycles. Fall and spring chinook, coho, and chum salmon and winter and summer steelhead and searun cutthroat trout are present in Coos Bay during most of the year. 

About 250 species of birds are resident or regular visitors to the Coos Bay area. Coos Bay is an important resting and foraging area and wintering ground for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.&nbsp;
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
A supplemental Environmental Assessment is being prepared to analyze the impact of design changes resulting from final engineering.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
EA for the construction of a&nbsp;Solar Farm at the Brunswick Executive Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
An Environmental Assessment for the construction of a Solar Farm at Sanford Maine Regional Airport.
EA for Taxiway extension
EA for Taxiway extension
EA for Taxiway extension
EA for Taxiway extension
EA for Taxiway extension
EA for Taxiway extension
EA for Taxiway extension
EA for Taxiway extension
EA for Taxiway extension
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT BEING PREPARED.

&nbsp;

Removal of identified obstructions to the critical surfaces for both Runway 13-31 and Runway 4-22
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) proposes to expand the storage capacity and add other improvements to the existing fuel farm complex and loading rack facility at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).&nbsp; The fuel farm is located on the southern tip of the PHL property in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, while the load rack is located about 1,100 feet to the southeast of Terminal D. The improvements include modifying the loading racks, expanding the existing fuel farm and associated site improvements, and replacing the fuel supply pipeline. Upgrades to the existing fuel arm would also be made to accommodate the increase in fuel storage capacity.
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
The project involves proposed construction of a new fuel farm in a new location and decommissioning of the existing fuel farm
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
Project elements include site development for a general aviation hangar area with a taxiway, taxilanes, aprons, an access road, and tenant parking.
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NO LONGER BEING PREPARED.


	
		
			
			•

			Seal Coat Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Access Road (approx. 61,000 square yards)

			• Rehabilitate Connecting Taxiway A: Mill &amp; Overlay (approx. 2,800 square yards)

			• Crack Seal Runway 16-34, Taxiways, Taxilanes, Apron, Access Road (approx. 79,000 square yards)

			Construct Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 9,900 square yards)

			• Construct Connecting Taxiways (approx. 3,500 square yards)

			• Remove Aircraft Parking Apron (approx. 6,200 square yards)

			• Remove or Relocate Two Aircraft Storage Hangars (approx. 9,000 square feet total)

			Remove Natural Growth Airspace Obstructions (approx. 29 acres of trees)

			• Remove and Relocate Man-Made Airspace Obstructions (i.e. poles, fencing)

			• Install Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF)

			• Construct MALSF Access Road (approx. 1,900’ x 20’)

			• Replace Runway 16-34 Airfield Lighting (Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights, Runway End

			Identifier Lights, Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights, Airfield Guidance Signs) and Electrical Building

			Construct Arrival/Departure Terminal Building (approx. 1,300 square feet)

			• Construct Site Utilities (electric, septic, water, natural gas)

			• Construct Terminal Area Fencing (approx. 1,800 linear feet)

			• Construct Access Road &amp; Parking Lot (approx. 2,000 square yards

			Remove Existing &amp; Construct New Above-Ground Fuel Facility (16,000 gallons total)
Omega Curves Correction Project fit the requirements for individual non-reporting Nationwide Permit 14.&nbsp;
Omega Curves Correction Project fit the requirements for individual non-reporting Nationwide Permit 14.&nbsp;
Omega Curves Correction Project fit the requirements for individual non-reporting Nationwide Permit 14.&nbsp;
Omega Curves Correction Project fit the requirements for individual non-reporting Nationwide Permit 14.&nbsp;
Section 106 PA, HPSR to Project file
Section 106 PA, HPSR to Project file
Section 106 PA, HPSR to Project file
A Department of the Army General Permit was issued on September 3, 2020, for the LaGuardia Airport Access Improvement Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers &amp; Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and/or over Flushing Bay and Flushing Creek, both navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of fill material into Flushing Bay, Flushing Creek, and a wetland adjacent to Flushing Creek.
A Department of the Army General Permit was issued on September 3, 2020, for the LaGuardia Airport Access Improvement Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers &amp; Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and/or over Flushing Bay and Flushing Creek, both navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of fill material into Flushing Bay, Flushing Creek, and a wetland adjacent to Flushing Creek.
A Department of the Army General Permit was issued on September 3, 2020, for the LaGuardia Airport Access Improvement Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers &amp; Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and/or over Flushing Bay and Flushing Creek, both navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of fill material into Flushing Bay, Flushing Creek, and a wetland adjacent to Flushing Creek.
A Department of the Army General Permit was issued on September 3, 2020, for the LaGuardia Airport Access Improvement Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers &amp; Harbors Act of 1899 for construction activities in and/or over Flushing Bay and Flushing Creek, both navigable waters of the United States, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of fill material into Flushing Bay, Flushing Creek, and a wetland adjacent to Flushing Creek.
Action is to initiate and complete Magnusen-Stevenson Fisheries Act Coordination by December 31st, 2020. &nbsp;&nbsp; To support this, the Corps of Engineers (SWG) will provide to NOAA a draft EFH assessment in the Draft Final report scheduled for June of 2020.&nbsp; By August 10th, 2020 the Corps expects to have a complete assessment.&nbsp; Between August and December, the Corps and NOAA are expected to complete the final EFH coordination. &nbsp; These dates were coordinated with Mr. Swafford in the first quarter of 2020.
Action is to initiate and complete Magnusen-Stevenson Fisheries Act Coordination by December 31st, 2020. &nbsp;&nbsp; To support this, the Corps of Engineers (SWG) will provide to NOAA a draft EFH assessment in the Draft Final report scheduled for June of 2020.&nbsp; By August 10th, 2020 the Corps expects to have a complete assessment.&nbsp; Between August and December, the Corps and NOAA are expected to complete the final EFH coordination. &nbsp; These dates were coordinated with Mr. Swafford in the first quarter of 2020.
Action is to initiate and complete Magnusen-Stevenson Fisheries Act Coordination by December 31st, 2020. &nbsp;&nbsp; To support this, the Corps of Engineers (SWG) will provide to NOAA a draft EFH assessment in the Draft Final report scheduled for June of 2020.&nbsp; By August 10th, 2020 the Corps expects to have a complete assessment.&nbsp; Between August and December, the Corps and NOAA are expected to complete the final EFH coordination. &nbsp; These dates were coordinated with Mr. Swafford in the first quarter of 2020.
For Buffalo Bayou &amp; Tribs the Corps (SWG) will develop a draft Coordination Act Report in coordination with the Clear Lake USFWS office and deliver this drat CAR to the FWS office by end of June 2020 when the Draft Final report is released.&nbsp; By October 13th, 2020 the Corps and FWS expect to have a complete CAR.&nbsp; The Corps and USFWS will continue coordination after October 13th and reach a final CAR by December 31, 2020.
For Buffalo Bayou &amp; Tribs the Corps (SWG) will develop a draft Coordination Act Report in coordination with the Clear Lake USFWS office and deliver this drat CAR to the FWS office by end of June 2020 when the Draft Final report is released.&nbsp; By October 13th, 2020 the Corps and FWS expect to have a complete CAR.&nbsp; The Corps and USFWS will continue coordination after October 13th and reach a final CAR by December 31, 2020.
The Corps will provide the FWS office in Clear Lake, TX a draft Biological Assessment as part of the June 2020 release of the Draft Final Report.&nbsp; The Corps and FWS anticipate that the Biological Assessment will be complete by&nbsp;August 10, 2020. The USFWS will provide the final Biological Opinion to the Corps NLT 135 days after receipt of a complete BA, which we anticipate will be&nbsp;by December 23, 2020. &nbsp;The dates provided here were negotiated with Chuck Ardizzone and David Hoth in December 2019 through February 2020 by phone.&nbsp; Milestone completion dates depend on timely submittal of the required information. FWS will coordinate with the Corps throughout the process to ensure common understanding and efficient completion of the consultation.
The Corps will provide the FWS office in Clear Lake, TX a draft Biological Assessment as part of the June 2020 release of the Draft Final Report.&nbsp; The Corps and FWS anticipate that the Biological Assessment will be complete by&nbsp;August 10, 2020. The USFWS will provide the final Biological Opinion to the Corps NLT 135 days after receipt of a complete BA, which we anticipate will be&nbsp;by December 23, 2020. &nbsp;The dates provided here were negotiated with Chuck Ardizzone and David Hoth in December 2019 through February 2020 by phone.&nbsp; Milestone completion dates depend on timely submittal of the required information. FWS will coordinate with the Corps throughout the process to ensure common understanding and efficient completion of the consultation.
The Corps will provide the FWS office in Clear Lake, TX a draft Biological Assessment as part of the June 2020 release of the Draft Final Report.&nbsp; The Corps and FWS anticipate that the Biological Assessment will be complete by&nbsp;August 10, 2020. The USFWS will provide the final Biological Opinion to the Corps NLT 135 days after receipt of a complete BA, which we anticipate will be&nbsp;by December 23, 2020. &nbsp;The dates provided here were negotiated with Chuck Ardizzone and David Hoth in December 2019 through February 2020 by phone.&nbsp; Milestone completion dates depend on timely submittal of the required information. FWS will coordinate with the Corps throughout the process to ensure common understanding and efficient completion of the consultation.
The Corps will provide the FWS office in Clear Lake, TX a draft Biological Assessment as part of the June 2020 release of the Draft Final Report.&nbsp; The Corps and FWS anticipate that the Biological Assessment will be complete by&nbsp;August 10, 2020. The USFWS will provide the final Biological Opinion to the Corps NLT 135 days after receipt of a complete BA, which we anticipate will be&nbsp;by December 23, 2020. &nbsp;The dates provided here were negotiated with Chuck Ardizzone and David Hoth in December 2019 through February 2020 by phone.&nbsp; Milestone completion dates depend on timely submittal of the required information. FWS will coordinate with the Corps throughout the process to ensure common understanding and efficient completion of the consultation.
Anticipate ESA S7 consultation will be informal as reflected in the schedule.
Anticipate ESA S7 consultation will be informal as reflected in the schedule.
Anticipate ESA S7 consultation will be informal as reflected in the schedule.
Anticipate ESA S7 consultation will be informal as reflected in the schedule.
FWCA input on project, will likely submit abbreviated comments rather than 2(b) report given resources involved.
FWCA input on project, will likely submit abbreviated comments rather than 2(b) report given resources involved.
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Initial scoping for the project was completed in October 2019 with a series of meetings and correspondence letters.&nbsp;
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
The RapidRide Roosevelt Project (Project)&nbsp;is a partnership between the City of Seattle and King County Metro to implement a bus rapid transit (BRT) serving City of Seattle neighborhoods from Downtown to Roosevelt. The Project proposes to improve transit travel times, reliability, and capacity by providing high-frequency, all-day transit service and enhancing connections with other transit modes. The Project would provide 24-hour high-quality, electric trolley BRT service along an approximately 6-mile long corridor. It would include 26 new BRT stations and 2.3 miles of new transit lanes. The Project would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to BRT stations by providing 5 miles of new protected bicycle lanes and approximately 200 ADA-compliant curb ramps and other pedestrian improvements. Alternatives include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The RapidRide Roosevelt Project (Project)&nbsp;is a partnership between the City of Seattle and King County Metro to implement a bus rapid transit (BRT) serving City of Seattle neighborhoods from Downtown to Roosevelt. The Project proposes to improve transit travel times, reliability, and capacity by providing high-frequency, all-day transit service and enhancing connections with other transit modes. The Project would provide 24-hour high-quality, electric trolley BRT service along an approximately 6-mile long corridor. It would include 26 new BRT stations and 2.3 miles of new transit lanes. The Project would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to BRT stations by providing 5 miles of new protected bicycle lanes and approximately 200 ADA-compliant curb ramps and other pedestrian improvements. Alternatives include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The RapidRide Roosevelt Project (Project)&nbsp;is a partnership between the City of Seattle and King County Metro to implement a bus rapid transit (BRT) serving City of Seattle neighborhoods from Downtown to Roosevelt. The Project proposes to improve transit travel times, reliability, and capacity by providing high-frequency, all-day transit service and enhancing connections with other transit modes. The Project would provide 24-hour high-quality, electric trolley BRT service along an approximately 6-mile long corridor. It would include 26 new BRT stations and 2.3 miles of new transit lanes. The Project would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to BRT stations by providing 5 miles of new protected bicycle lanes and approximately 200 ADA-compliant curb ramps and other pedestrian improvements. Alternatives include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The RapidRide Roosevelt Project (Project)&nbsp;is a partnership between the City of Seattle and King County Metro to implement a bus rapid transit (BRT) serving City of Seattle neighborhoods from Downtown to Roosevelt. The Project proposes to improve transit travel times, reliability, and capacity by providing high-frequency, all-day transit service and enhancing connections with other transit modes. The Project would provide 24-hour high-quality, electric trolley BRT service along an approximately 6-mile long corridor. It would include 26 new BRT stations and 2.3 miles of new transit lanes. The Project would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to BRT stations by providing 5 miles of new protected bicycle lanes and approximately 200 ADA-compliant curb ramps and other pedestrian improvements. Alternatives include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The RapidRide Roosevelt Project (Project)&nbsp;is a partnership between the City of Seattle and King County Metro to implement a bus rapid transit (BRT) serving City of Seattle neighborhoods from Downtown to Roosevelt. The Project proposes to improve transit travel times, reliability, and capacity by providing high-frequency, all-day transit service and enhancing connections with other transit modes. The Project would provide 24-hour high-quality, electric trolley BRT service along an approximately 6-mile long corridor. It would include 26 new BRT stations and 2.3 miles of new transit lanes. The Project would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to BRT stations by providing 5 miles of new protected bicycle lanes and approximately 200 ADA-compliant curb ramps and other pedestrian improvements. Alternatives include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)&nbsp;Project is a proposed 14-mile transit route with stops between Union Depot in Lowertown Saint Paul and downtown White Bear Lake.
The Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)&nbsp;Project is a proposed 14-mile transit route with stops between Union Depot in Lowertown Saint Paul and downtown White Bear Lake.
The Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)&nbsp;Project is a proposed 14-mile transit route with stops between Union Depot in Lowertown Saint Paul and downtown White Bear Lake.
The Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)&nbsp;Project is a proposed 14-mile transit route with stops between Union Depot in Lowertown Saint Paul and downtown White Bear Lake.
The Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)&nbsp;Project is a proposed 14-mile transit route with stops between Union Depot in Lowertown Saint Paul and downtown White Bear Lake.
Proposed project will extend 73rd St from Layton Road to old SR 132 in Pendleton, and then SR 38 in Pendleton to continue development of an access freight corridor parallel to I69.
Proposed project will extend 73rd St from Layton Road to old SR 132 in Pendleton, and then SR 38 in Pendleton to continue development of an access freight corridor parallel to I69.
Proposed project will extend 73rd St from Layton Road to old SR 132 in Pendleton, and then SR 38 in Pendleton to continue development of an access freight corridor parallel to I69.
Proposed project will extend 73rd St from Layton Road to old SR 132 in Pendleton, and then SR 38 in Pendleton to continue development of an access freight corridor parallel to I69.
Proposed project will extend 73rd St from Layton Road to old SR 132 in Pendleton, and then SR 38 in Pendleton to continue development of an access freight corridor parallel to I69.
Proposed project addresses structural deficiencies, operational obsolescence, and capacity demand at Heroes Tunnel. Purpose and need and alternatives are still being developed, as of November 2016.
Proposed project addresses structural deficiencies, operational obsolescence, and capacity demand at Heroes Tunnel. Purpose and need and alternatives are still being developed, as of November 2016.
Proposed project addresses structural deficiencies, operational obsolescence, and capacity demand at Heroes Tunnel. Purpose and need and alternatives are still being developed, as of November 2016.
Proposed project addresses structural deficiencies, operational obsolescence, and capacity demand at Heroes Tunnel. Purpose and need and alternatives are still being developed, as of November 2016.
Proposed project addresses structural deficiencies, operational obsolescence, and capacity demand at Heroes Tunnel. Purpose and need and alternatives are still being developed, as of November 2016.
I70/I65 North Split.&nbsp; Anticipated reconstruction with possible additional travel lanes.&nbsp; Project will include multiple downtown bridges
I70/I65 North Split.&nbsp; Anticipated reconstruction with possible additional travel lanes.&nbsp; Project will include multiple downtown bridges
I70/I65 North Split.&nbsp; Anticipated reconstruction with possible additional travel lanes.&nbsp; Project will include multiple downtown bridges
I70/I65 North Split.&nbsp; Anticipated reconstruction with possible additional travel lanes.&nbsp; Project will include multiple downtown bridges
I70/I65 North Split.&nbsp; Anticipated reconstruction with possible additional travel lanes.&nbsp; Project will include multiple downtown bridges
Alleviate traffic congestion along Woodruff Road in Greenville, SC, in vicinity of I-385.
Alleviate traffic congestion along Woodruff Road in Greenville, SC, in vicinity of I-385.
Alleviate traffic congestion along Woodruff Road in Greenville, SC, in vicinity of I-385.
Alleviate traffic congestion along Woodruff Road in Greenville, SC, in vicinity of I-385.
Alleviate traffic congestion along Woodruff Road in Greenville, SC, in vicinity of I-385.
The Short-Term Development Program consists of air cargo relocation, taxiway improvements, North Apron improvements, general aviation redevelopment and drainage improvements.
The Short-Term Development Program consists of air cargo relocation, taxiway improvements, North Apron improvements, general aviation redevelopment and drainage improvements.
The Short-Term Development Program consists of air cargo relocation, taxiway improvements, North Apron improvements, general aviation redevelopment and drainage improvements.
The Short-Term Development Program consists of air cargo relocation, taxiway improvements, North Apron improvements, general aviation redevelopment and drainage improvements.
The Short-Term Development Program consists of air cargo relocation, taxiway improvements, North Apron improvements, general aviation redevelopment and drainage improvements.
The Proposed Action will construct additional GA parking, and improve safety and efficiency for GA aircraft moving within the apron area accessing Taxiway B and Runway 10/28.
The Proposed Action will construct additional GA parking, and improve safety and efficiency for GA aircraft moving within the apron area accessing Taxiway B and Runway 10/28.
The Proposed Action will construct additional GA parking, and improve safety and efficiency for GA aircraft moving within the apron area accessing Taxiway B and Runway 10/28.
The Proposed Action will construct additional GA parking, and improve safety and efficiency for GA aircraft moving within the apron area accessing Taxiway B and Runway 10/28.
The Proposed Action will construct additional GA parking, and improve safety and efficiency for GA aircraft moving within the apron area accessing Taxiway B and Runway 10/28.
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the McGrath Airport. Erosion protection is required to protect the access road and the runway embankment from further erosion. The proposed work would include:
• Rehabilitate Runway 16/34, Taxiways A, B, D, H, I, and the apron
• Replace runway and taxiway lighting and airport signs
• Install erosion protection off the end of Runway 34
• Improve drainage
• Relocate utilities
• Obtain an easement from ADNR for the erosion control installation in the Kuskokwim River
&nbsp;
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the McGrath Airport. Erosion protection is required to protect the access road and the runway embankment from further erosion. The proposed work would include:
• Rehabilitate Runway 16/34, Taxiways A, B, D, H, I, and the apron
• Replace runway and taxiway lighting and airport signs
• Install erosion protection off the end of Runway 34
• Improve drainage
• Relocate utilities
• Obtain an easement from ADNR for the erosion control installation in the Kuskokwim River
&nbsp;
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the McGrath Airport. Erosion protection is required to protect the access road and the runway embankment from further erosion. The proposed work would include:
• Rehabilitate Runway 16/34, Taxiways A, B, D, H, I, and the apron
• Replace runway and taxiway lighting and airport signs
• Install erosion protection off the end of Runway 34
• Improve drainage
• Relocate utilities
• Obtain an easement from ADNR for the erosion control installation in the Kuskokwim River
&nbsp;
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the McGrath Airport. Erosion protection is required to protect the access road and the runway embankment from further erosion. The proposed work would include:
• Rehabilitate Runway 16/34, Taxiways A, B, D, H, I, and the apron
• Replace runway and taxiway lighting and airport signs
• Install erosion protection off the end of Runway 34
• Improve drainage
• Relocate utilities
• Obtain an easement from ADNR for the erosion control installation in the Kuskokwim River
&nbsp;
The proposed project would rehabilitate and improve the McGrath Airport. Erosion protection is required to protect the access road and the runway embankment from further erosion. The proposed work would include:
• Rehabilitate Runway 16/34, Taxiways A, B, D, H, I, and the apron
• Replace runway and taxiway lighting and airport signs
• Install erosion protection off the end of Runway 34
• Improve drainage
• Relocate utilities
• Obtain an easement from ADNR for the erosion control installation in the Kuskokwim River
&nbsp;
Expansion of two fixed based operator service facilities operated by the Signature Flight Support Corporation, commonly referred to as Signature Flight Support-South Facility and the Signature Flight Support-East Facility.&nbsp;The project includes the expansion of the aprons at both facilities and the construction of three new hangars, additional office space, and vehicular parking.
Expansion of two fixed based operator service facilities operated by the Signature Flight Support Corporation, commonly referred to as Signature Flight Support-South Facility and the Signature Flight Support-East Facility.&nbsp;The project includes the expansion of the aprons at both facilities and the construction of three new hangars, additional office space, and vehicular parking.
Expansion of two fixed based operator service facilities operated by the Signature Flight Support Corporation, commonly referred to as Signature Flight Support-South Facility and the Signature Flight Support-East Facility.&nbsp;The project includes the expansion of the aprons at both facilities and the construction of three new hangars, additional office space, and vehicular parking.
Expansion of two fixed based operator service facilities operated by the Signature Flight Support Corporation, commonly referred to as Signature Flight Support-South Facility and the Signature Flight Support-East Facility.&nbsp;The project includes the expansion of the aprons at both facilities and the construction of three new hangars, additional office space, and vehicular parking.
Expansion of two fixed based operator service facilities operated by the Signature Flight Support Corporation, commonly referred to as Signature Flight Support-South Facility and the Signature Flight Support-East Facility.&nbsp;The project includes the expansion of the aprons at both facilities and the construction of three new hangars, additional office space, and vehicular parking.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to realign and lengthen the Port Lions Airport runway and make safety improvements to the airport and associated facilities to address deficiencies in order to fulfill its role as a community class airport.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to realign and lengthen the Port Lions Airport runway and make safety improvements to the airport and associated facilities to address deficiencies in order to fulfill its role as a community class airport.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to realign and lengthen the Port Lions Airport runway and make safety improvements to the airport and associated facilities to address deficiencies in order to fulfill its role as a community class airport.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to realign and lengthen the Port Lions Airport runway and make safety improvements to the airport and associated facilities to address deficiencies in order to fulfill its role as a community class airport.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposes to realign and lengthen the Port Lions Airport runway and make safety improvements to the airport and associated facilities to address deficiencies in order to fulfill its role as a community class airport.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp;This includes rehabilitation and reconfiguration of RW 11/29, construction of a parallel taxiway, 5-23 and 11/29 as well as hangar development and flooding analysis.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp;This includes rehabilitation and reconfiguration of RW 11/29, construction of a parallel taxiway, 5-23 and 11/29 as well as hangar development and flooding analysis.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp;This includes rehabilitation and reconfiguration of RW 11/29, construction of a parallel taxiway, 5-23 and 11/29 as well as hangar development and flooding analysis.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp;This includes rehabilitation and reconfiguration of RW 11/29, construction of a parallel taxiway, 5-23 and 11/29 as well as hangar development and flooding analysis.
EA for proposed projects identified in five year CIP.&nbsp;This includes rehabilitation and reconfiguration of RW 11/29, construction of a parallel taxiway, 5-23 and 11/29 as well as hangar development and flooding analysis.
End around taxiway north of the Runway 18C approach end
End around taxiway north of the Runway 18C approach end
End around taxiway north of the Runway 18C approach end
End around taxiway north of the Runway 18C approach end
End around taxiway north of the Runway 18C approach end
EA for proposed projects identified in the SAMP as Near Term Projects to address passenger demand within acceptable delay. &nbsp;The primary projects include the addition of gates, second terminal construction, taxiway and runway improvements and enabling projects.
EA for proposed projects identified in the SAMP as Near Term Projects to address passenger demand within acceptable delay. &nbsp;The primary projects include the addition of gates, second terminal construction, taxiway and runway improvements and enabling projects.
EA for proposed projects identified in the SAMP as Near Term Projects to address passenger demand within acceptable delay. &nbsp;The primary projects include the addition of gates, second terminal construction, taxiway and runway improvements and enabling projects.
EA for proposed projects identified in the SAMP as Near Term Projects to address passenger demand within acceptable delay. &nbsp;The primary projects include the addition of gates, second terminal construction, taxiway and runway improvements and enabling projects.
EA for proposed projects identified in the SAMP as Near Term Projects to address passenger demand within acceptable delay. &nbsp;The primary projects include the addition of gates, second terminal construction, taxiway and runway improvements and enabling projects.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements. The improvements include removing trees.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements and filling of RSA area.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements and filling of RSA area.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements and filling of RSA area.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements and filling of RSA area.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements and filling of RSA area.
BIA to approve a business lease between the Moapa Band of Paiutes and EDF Renewables.
BIA to approve a business lease between the Moapa Band of Paiutes and EDF Renewables.
BIA to approve a business lease between the Moapa Band of Paiutes and EDF Renewables.
BIA to approve a business lease between the Moapa Band of Paiutes and EDF Renewables.
BIA to approve a business lease between the Moapa Band of Paiutes and EDF Renewables.
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements that taxilane, GA apron, and drainge improvements
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements that taxilane, GA apron, and drainge improvements
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements that taxilane, GA apron, and drainge improvements
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements that taxilane, GA apron, and drainge improvements
The project is necessary to evaluate the potential &nbsp;impacts of the proposed airport improvements that taxilane, GA apron, and drainge improvements
EA for proposed projects in the five year Capital Improvement Program.
EA for proposed projects in the five year Capital Improvement Program.
EA for proposed projects in the five year Capital Improvement Program.
EA for proposed projects in the five year Capital Improvement Program.
EA for proposed projects in the five year Capital Improvement Program.
Runway extenstion and relocation of state highway &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
Runway extenstion and relocation of state highway &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
Runway extenstion and relocation of state highway &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
Runway extenstion and relocation of state highway &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
Runway extenstion and relocation of state highway &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
The project, which has received direct funding from the state legislature, includes a 1,506-foot runway extension (6,200 feet total) and taxiway construction to support local economic development objectives.
The project, which has received direct funding from the state legislature, includes a 1,506-foot runway extension (6,200 feet total) and taxiway construction to support local economic development objectives.
The project, which has received direct funding from the state legislature, includes a 1,506-foot runway extension (6,200 feet total) and taxiway construction to support local economic development objectives.
The project, which has received direct funding from the state legislature, includes a 1,506-foot runway extension (6,200 feet total) and taxiway construction to support local economic development objectives.
The project, which has received direct funding from the state legislature, includes a 1,506-foot runway extension (6,200 feet total) and taxiway construction to support local economic development objectives.
The Federal Aviation Administration’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, is the ongoing transformation of air traffic control technologies and procedures in the United States. &nbsp;A key NextGen goal is to safely improve the way aircraft navigate complex metropolitan areas, which we call Metroplexes, to make flight routes and airports more efficient. The FAA has identified multiple Metroplex areas in the United States. Each Metroplex includes one or more commercial airports that serve at least one major city. A Metroplex project allows the FAA to improve regional traffic movement by making the best use of airspace and procedures using the precision of satellite-based navigation. In addition to improving navigation, Metroplex projects may reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions. Other benefits include:  Modernizes air traffic procedures to today’s standards  Enhances aviation safety  Reduces task complexity for air traffic control and pilots Use of NextGen procedures in these areas could improve on-time performance, which would benefit the region and the entire national airspace system. Las Vegas Metroplex Project The airspace surrounding Las Vegas has a large number of air traffic procedures that have not been changed for many years. While these procedures are safe, most are inefficient due to advances in technology. This is one of the reasons why the airspace surrounding the Las Vegas metropolitan area has been identified for Metroplex development. The proposed Metroplex would allow for more direct and efficient routing of aircraft into and out of Las Vegas, potentially reducing flight times for passengers. Changes may occur for arrivals and departures from airports in the Las Vegas Metroplex project. &nbsp;Airports included in the Las Vegas Metroplex  Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS)  Henderson Executive Airport (HND)  North Las Vegas Airport (VGT)  Nellis Air Force Base (LSV)
The Federal Aviation Administration’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, is the ongoing transformation of air traffic control technologies and procedures in the United States. &nbsp;A key NextGen goal is to safely improve the way aircraft navigate complex metropolitan areas, which we call Metroplexes, to make flight routes and airports more efficient. The FAA has identified multiple Metroplex areas in the United States. Each Metroplex includes one or more commercial airports that serve at least one major city. A Metroplex project allows the FAA to improve regional traffic movement by making the best use of airspace and procedures using the precision of satellite-based navigation. In addition to improving navigation, Metroplex projects may reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions. Other benefits include:  Modernizes air traffic procedures to today’s standards  Enhances aviation safety  Reduces task complexity for air traffic control and pilots Use of NextGen procedures in these areas could improve on-time performance, which would benefit the region and the entire national airspace system. Las Vegas Metroplex Project The airspace surrounding Las Vegas has a large number of air traffic procedures that have not been changed for many years. While these procedures are safe, most are inefficient due to advances in technology. This is one of the reasons why the airspace surrounding the Las Vegas metropolitan area has been identified for Metroplex development. The proposed Metroplex would allow for more direct and efficient routing of aircraft into and out of Las Vegas, potentially reducing flight times for passengers. Changes may occur for arrivals and departures from airports in the Las Vegas Metroplex project. &nbsp;Airports included in the Las Vegas Metroplex  Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS)  Henderson Executive Airport (HND)  North Las Vegas Airport (VGT)  Nellis Air Force Base (LSV)
The Federal Aviation Administration’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, is the ongoing transformation of air traffic control technologies and procedures in the United States. &nbsp;A key NextGen goal is to safely improve the way aircraft navigate complex metropolitan areas, which we call Metroplexes, to make flight routes and airports more efficient. The FAA has identified multiple Metroplex areas in the United States. Each Metroplex includes one or more commercial airports that serve at least one major city. A Metroplex project allows the FAA to improve regional traffic movement by making the best use of airspace and procedures using the precision of satellite-based navigation. In addition to improving navigation, Metroplex projects may reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions. Other benefits include:  Modernizes air traffic procedures to today’s standards  Enhances aviation safety  Reduces task complexity for air traffic control and pilots Use of NextGen procedures in these areas could improve on-time performance, which would benefit the region and the entire national airspace system. Las Vegas Metroplex Project The airspace surrounding Las Vegas has a large number of air traffic procedures that have not been changed for many years. While these procedures are safe, most are inefficient due to advances in technology. This is one of the reasons why the airspace surrounding the Las Vegas metropolitan area has been identified for Metroplex development. The proposed Metroplex would allow for more direct and efficient routing of aircraft into and out of Las Vegas, potentially reducing flight times for passengers. Changes may occur for arrivals and departures from airports in the Las Vegas Metroplex project. &nbsp;Airports included in the Las Vegas Metroplex  Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS)  Henderson Executive Airport (HND)  North Las Vegas Airport (VGT)  Nellis Air Force Base (LSV)
The Federal Aviation Administration’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, is the ongoing transformation of air traffic control technologies and procedures in the United States. &nbsp;A key NextGen goal is to safely improve the way aircraft navigate complex metropolitan areas, which we call Metroplexes, to make flight routes and airports more efficient. The FAA has identified multiple Metroplex areas in the United States. Each Metroplex includes one or more commercial airports that serve at least one major city. A Metroplex project allows the FAA to improve regional traffic movement by making the best use of airspace and procedures using the precision of satellite-based navigation. In addition to improving navigation, Metroplex projects may reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions. Other benefits include:  Modernizes air traffic procedures to today’s standards  Enhances aviation safety  Reduces task complexity for air traffic control and pilots Use of NextGen procedures in these areas could improve on-time performance, which would benefit the region and the entire national airspace system. Las Vegas Metroplex Project The airspace surrounding Las Vegas has a large number of air traffic procedures that have not been changed for many years. While these procedures are safe, most are inefficient due to advances in technology. This is one of the reasons why the airspace surrounding the Las Vegas metropolitan area has been identified for Metroplex development. The proposed Metroplex would allow for more direct and efficient routing of aircraft into and out of Las Vegas, potentially reducing flight times for passengers. Changes may occur for arrivals and departures from airports in the Las Vegas Metroplex project. &nbsp;Airports included in the Las Vegas Metroplex  Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS)  Henderson Executive Airport (HND)  North Las Vegas Airport (VGT)  Nellis Air Force Base (LSV)
The Federal Aviation Administration’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, is the ongoing transformation of air traffic control technologies and procedures in the United States. &nbsp;A key NextGen goal is to safely improve the way aircraft navigate complex metropolitan areas, which we call Metroplexes, to make flight routes and airports more efficient. The FAA has identified multiple Metroplex areas in the United States. Each Metroplex includes one or more commercial airports that serve at least one major city. A Metroplex project allows the FAA to improve regional traffic movement by making the best use of airspace and procedures using the precision of satellite-based navigation. In addition to improving navigation, Metroplex projects may reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions. Other benefits include:  Modernizes air traffic procedures to today’s standards  Enhances aviation safety  Reduces task complexity for air traffic control and pilots Use of NextGen procedures in these areas could improve on-time performance, which would benefit the region and the entire national airspace system. Las Vegas Metroplex Project The airspace surrounding Las Vegas has a large number of air traffic procedures that have not been changed for many years. While these procedures are safe, most are inefficient due to advances in technology. This is one of the reasons why the airspace surrounding the Las Vegas metropolitan area has been identified for Metroplex development. The proposed Metroplex would allow for more direct and efficient routing of aircraft into and out of Las Vegas, potentially reducing flight times for passengers. Changes may occur for arrivals and departures from airports in the Las Vegas Metroplex project. &nbsp;Airports included in the Las Vegas Metroplex  Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS)  Henderson Executive Airport (HND)  North Las Vegas Airport (VGT)  Nellis Air Force Base (LSV)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed removal of pond/wetlands adjacent to Runway 9/27, construct parallel taxiway, acquire land for BRL, install wildlife fence, and obstruction removal subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed removal of pond/wetlands adjacent to Runway 9/27, construct parallel taxiway, acquire land for BRL, install wildlife fence, and obstruction removal subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed removal of pond/wetlands adjacent to Runway 9/27, construct parallel taxiway, acquire land for BRL, install wildlife fence, and obstruction removal subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed removal of pond/wetlands adjacent to Runway 9/27, construct parallel taxiway, acquire land for BRL, install wildlife fence, and obstruction removal subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed removal of pond/wetlands adjacent to Runway 9/27, construct parallel taxiway, acquire land for BRL, install wildlife fence, and obstruction removal subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document.
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
Project includes grade correction, EMAS, and possible relocation of taxiway
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed land acquisition and Runway 18/36 extension at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, Kansas subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed land acquisition and Runway 18/36 extension at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, Kansas subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed land acquisition and Runway 18/36 extension at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, Kansas subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed land acquisition and Runway 18/36 extension at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, Kansas subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for proposed land acquisition and Runway 18/36 extension at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, Kansas subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA document. &nbsp;
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and critical habitat, exist throughout much of the area affected by the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge (EQRB). The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 


	 The final completion date is 150 days* following the consultation initiation date.


*The final completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate ESA consultation.

Since the Biological Assessment will cover information necessary for both ESA consultation and EFH consultation, the initiation dates and completion dates are concurrent.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and critical habitat, exist throughout much of the area affected by the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge (EQRB). The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 


	 The final completion date is 150 days* following the consultation initiation date.


*The final completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate ESA consultation.

Since the Biological Assessment will cover information necessary for both ESA consultation and EFH consultation, the initiation dates and completion dates are concurrent.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and critical habitat, exist throughout much of the area affected by the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge (EQRB). The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 


	 The final completion date is 150 days* following the consultation initiation date.


*The final completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate ESA consultation.

Since the Biological Assessment will cover information necessary for both ESA consultation and EFH consultation, the initiation dates and completion dates are concurrent.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and critical habitat, exist throughout much of the area affected by the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge (EQRB). The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 


	 The final completion date is 150 days* following the consultation initiation date.


*The final completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate ESA consultation.

Since the Biological Assessment will cover information necessary for both ESA consultation and EFH consultation, the initiation dates and completion dates are concurrent.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to seismically retrofit seven bridges in Merced County to increase their structural integrity in case of seismic event and upgrade deficient bridge railings to current standards.

The project would seismically retrofit seven bridges&nbsp;on State Routes 59, 140, and 152 in Merced County to increase their structural integrity by doing the following:


	Adding steel column casings
	Retrofitting hinges with pipe seat extenders and cable restrainers


The work would bring the bridges up to current standards and minimize the risk of collapse during a seismic event. The project would also upgrade the non-standard bridge railings. In addition, 8-foot shoulders would be added on the Los Banos Creek/West Branch Mud Slough bridge (Bridge Number 039-0090); the bridge currently has no shoulders and does not match the approaching roadway, which has 8-foot shoulders.
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
Caltrans District 3 proposes to improve safety by modifying the horizontal and vertical curves on this segment of State Route (SR) 20 in Nevada County. This project will update the roadway to current standards by increasing the curve radii, widening the shoulders to 8 feet and improving the vertical profile grade. In addition, this project will improve the clear recovery zone (CRZ) by removing obstacles and flattening slopes close to the travelled way.
The purpose of this project is to reduce the number and severity of collisions at this location. The project is needed because accidents are attributed to variable speeds approaching and within this segment, as well as tight curve radii and vertical profile of approximately 6%.
Caltrans District 3 proposes to improve safety by modifying the horizontal and vertical curves on this segment of State Route (SR) 20 in Nevada County. This project will update the roadway to current standards by increasing the curve radii, widening the shoulders to 8 feet and improving the vertical profile grade. In addition, this project will improve the clear recovery zone (CRZ) by removing obstacles and flattening slopes close to the travelled way.
The purpose of this project is to reduce the number and severity of collisions at this location. The project is needed because accidents are attributed to variable speeds approaching and within this segment, as well as tight curve radii and vertical profile of approximately 6%.
Caltrans District 3 proposes to improve safety by modifying the horizontal and vertical curves on this segment of State Route (SR) 20 in Nevada County. This project will update the roadway to current standards by increasing the curve radii, widening the shoulders to 8 feet and improving the vertical profile grade. In addition, this project will improve the clear recovery zone (CRZ) by removing obstacles and flattening slopes close to the travelled way.
The purpose of this project is to reduce the number and severity of collisions at this location. The project is needed because accidents are attributed to variable speeds approaching and within this segment, as well as tight curve radii and vertical profile of approximately 6%.
Caltrans District 3 proposes to improve safety by modifying the horizontal and vertical curves on this segment of State Route (SR) 20 in Nevada County. This project will update the roadway to current standards by increasing the curve radii, widening the shoulders to 8 feet and improving the vertical profile grade. In addition, this project will improve the clear recovery zone (CRZ) by removing obstacles and flattening slopes close to the travelled way.
The purpose of this project is to reduce the number and severity of collisions at this location. The project is needed because accidents are attributed to variable speeds approaching and within this segment, as well as tight curve radii and vertical profile of approximately 6%.
Caltrans District 3 proposes to improve safety by modifying the horizontal and vertical curves on this segment of State Route (SR) 20 in Nevada County. This project will update the roadway to current standards by increasing the curve radii, widening the shoulders to 8 feet and improving the vertical profile grade. In addition, this project will improve the clear recovery zone (CRZ) by removing obstacles and flattening slopes close to the travelled way.
The purpose of this project is to reduce the number and severity of collisions at this location. The project is needed because accidents are attributed to variable speeds approaching and within this segment, as well as tight curve radii and vertical profile of approximately 6%.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to replace the existing Refugio Road Undercrossing Bridges (#51-0215R and #51-0215L) along State Route 101 near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County between postmiles (PM) 36.1 and 37.1. This project was initiated after concrete core testing and an inspection of the structures by Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations documented the presence of alkali-silica reactive aggregate in the concrete and recommended that both structures be completely replaced. A detailed Advanced Planning Study was prepared by Caltrans Structures Design and four proposed bridge design alternatives were identified for bridge replacement.



The proposed improvements would maintain the existing northbound and southbound traffic lanes, maintain the same bridge lengths, alignments, profiles, and provide safety improvements including upgraded bridge rails. Bridge supports such as abutments and bents vary by project alternative. Each new bridge is proposed to be six feet and four inches wider than the existing structures. In addition to replacing the bridges, rails on the smaller northbound on-ramp bridge would be upgraded. The concrete-grouted rock slope protection in Refugio Creek would be modified to provide adequate passage for anadromous fish. Permanent vegetation control would be installed under metal beam guardrail, and at the gore tip of the southbound Refugio Road off-ramp.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to replace the existing Refugio Road Undercrossing Bridges (#51-0215R and #51-0215L) along State Route 101 near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County between postmiles (PM) 36.1 and 37.1. This project was initiated after concrete core testing and an inspection of the structures by Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations documented the presence of alkali-silica reactive aggregate in the concrete and recommended that both structures be completely replaced. A detailed Advanced Planning Study was prepared by Caltrans Structures Design and four proposed bridge design alternatives were identified for bridge replacement.



The proposed improvements would maintain the existing northbound and southbound traffic lanes, maintain the same bridge lengths, alignments, profiles, and provide safety improvements including upgraded bridge rails. Bridge supports such as abutments and bents vary by project alternative. Each new bridge is proposed to be six feet and four inches wider than the existing structures. In addition to replacing the bridges, rails on the smaller northbound on-ramp bridge would be upgraded. The concrete-grouted rock slope protection in Refugio Creek would be modified to provide adequate passage for anadromous fish. Permanent vegetation control would be installed under metal beam guardrail, and at the gore tip of the southbound Refugio Road off-ramp.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to replace the existing Refugio Road Undercrossing Bridges (#51-0215R and #51-0215L) along State Route 101 near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County between postmiles (PM) 36.1 and 37.1. This project was initiated after concrete core testing and an inspection of the structures by Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations documented the presence of alkali-silica reactive aggregate in the concrete and recommended that both structures be completely replaced. A detailed Advanced Planning Study was prepared by Caltrans Structures Design and four proposed bridge design alternatives were identified for bridge replacement.



The proposed improvements would maintain the existing northbound and southbound traffic lanes, maintain the same bridge lengths, alignments, profiles, and provide safety improvements including upgraded bridge rails. Bridge supports such as abutments and bents vary by project alternative. Each new bridge is proposed to be six feet and four inches wider than the existing structures. In addition to replacing the bridges, rails on the smaller northbound on-ramp bridge would be upgraded. The concrete-grouted rock slope protection in Refugio Creek would be modified to provide adequate passage for anadromous fish. Permanent vegetation control would be installed under metal beam guardrail, and at the gore tip of the southbound Refugio Road off-ramp.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to replace the existing Refugio Road Undercrossing Bridges (#51-0215R and #51-0215L) along State Route 101 near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County between postmiles (PM) 36.1 and 37.1. This project was initiated after concrete core testing and an inspection of the structures by Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations documented the presence of alkali-silica reactive aggregate in the concrete and recommended that both structures be completely replaced. A detailed Advanced Planning Study was prepared by Caltrans Structures Design and four proposed bridge design alternatives were identified for bridge replacement.



The proposed improvements would maintain the existing northbound and southbound traffic lanes, maintain the same bridge lengths, alignments, profiles, and provide safety improvements including upgraded bridge rails. Bridge supports such as abutments and bents vary by project alternative. Each new bridge is proposed to be six feet and four inches wider than the existing structures. In addition to replacing the bridges, rails on the smaller northbound on-ramp bridge would be upgraded. The concrete-grouted rock slope protection in Refugio Creek would be modified to provide adequate passage for anadromous fish. Permanent vegetation control would be installed under metal beam guardrail, and at the gore tip of the southbound Refugio Road off-ramp.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to replace the existing Refugio Road Undercrossing Bridges (#51-0215R and #51-0215L) along State Route 101 near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County between postmiles (PM) 36.1 and 37.1. This project was initiated after concrete core testing and an inspection of the structures by Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations documented the presence of alkali-silica reactive aggregate in the concrete and recommended that both structures be completely replaced. A detailed Advanced Planning Study was prepared by Caltrans Structures Design and four proposed bridge design alternatives were identified for bridge replacement.



The proposed improvements would maintain the existing northbound and southbound traffic lanes, maintain the same bridge lengths, alignments, profiles, and provide safety improvements including upgraded bridge rails. Bridge supports such as abutments and bents vary by project alternative. Each new bridge is proposed to be six feet and four inches wider than the existing structures. In addition to replacing the bridges, rails on the smaller northbound on-ramp bridge would be upgraded. The concrete-grouted rock slope protection in Refugio Creek would be modified to provide adequate passage for anadromous fish. Permanent vegetation control would be installed under metal beam guardrail, and at the gore tip of the southbound Refugio Road off-ramp.
Caltrans, District 10 proposes the following project:

The&nbsp;Stockton Channel VIaduct Bridge Rehab project&nbsp;would&nbsp;rehabilitate the northbound and the southbound bridges on I-5 that span the Stockton Channel. The bridges are approximately 2725’ in length. The existing deck will be replaced, and the existing superstructure elements will be strengthened to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. The existing bridge railings will also be upgraded to meet the latest FHWA safety standards. The existing substructure will be evaluated and rehabilitated to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. Additionally, the existing piers will be analyzed for scour, and scour counter measures will be utilized as required. The bridge piers that are located within navigational waters will also be protected from impact by sea vessels by use of fender systems as required. This project will require traffic handling as I-5 is a major corridor for goods and services movement. The environmental aspects due to the work in the waterway, as well as any right of way impacts will be addressed. Coordination with multiple partners and stakeholders will be required, as well as utility coordination. There will also be coordination with the US Coast Guard as the project is located within navigational waters. This project also entails the construction of a new standalone structure which will function as an offramp to Pershing Avenue. This new structure will connect I-5 Northbound in the vicinity of SR 4 to the northbound Pershing Avenue, it will widen the I-5 Norhtbound, and span the Stockton Channel.
Caltrans, District 10 proposes the following project:

The&nbsp;Stockton Channel VIaduct Bridge Rehab project&nbsp;would&nbsp;rehabilitate the northbound and the southbound bridges on I-5 that span the Stockton Channel. The bridges are approximately 2725’ in length. The existing deck will be replaced, and the existing superstructure elements will be strengthened to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. The existing bridge railings will also be upgraded to meet the latest FHWA safety standards. The existing substructure will be evaluated and rehabilitated to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. Additionally, the existing piers will be analyzed for scour, and scour counter measures will be utilized as required. The bridge piers that are located within navigational waters will also be protected from impact by sea vessels by use of fender systems as required. This project will require traffic handling as I-5 is a major corridor for goods and services movement. The environmental aspects due to the work in the waterway, as well as any right of way impacts will be addressed. Coordination with multiple partners and stakeholders will be required, as well as utility coordination. There will also be coordination with the US Coast Guard as the project is located within navigational waters. This project also entails the construction of a new standalone structure which will function as an offramp to Pershing Avenue. This new structure will connect I-5 Northbound in the vicinity of SR 4 to the northbound Pershing Avenue, it will widen the I-5 Norhtbound, and span the Stockton Channel.
Caltrans, District 10 proposes the following project:

The&nbsp;Stockton Channel VIaduct Bridge Rehab project&nbsp;would&nbsp;rehabilitate the northbound and the southbound bridges on I-5 that span the Stockton Channel. The bridges are approximately 2725’ in length. The existing deck will be replaced, and the existing superstructure elements will be strengthened to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. The existing bridge railings will also be upgraded to meet the latest FHWA safety standards. The existing substructure will be evaluated and rehabilitated to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. Additionally, the existing piers will be analyzed for scour, and scour counter measures will be utilized as required. The bridge piers that are located within navigational waters will also be protected from impact by sea vessels by use of fender systems as required. This project will require traffic handling as I-5 is a major corridor for goods and services movement. The environmental aspects due to the work in the waterway, as well as any right of way impacts will be addressed. Coordination with multiple partners and stakeholders will be required, as well as utility coordination. There will also be coordination with the US Coast Guard as the project is located within navigational waters. This project also entails the construction of a new standalone structure which will function as an offramp to Pershing Avenue. This new structure will connect I-5 Northbound in the vicinity of SR 4 to the northbound Pershing Avenue, it will widen the I-5 Norhtbound, and span the Stockton Channel.
Caltrans, District 10 proposes the following project:

The&nbsp;Stockton Channel VIaduct Bridge Rehab project&nbsp;would&nbsp;rehabilitate the northbound and the southbound bridges on I-5 that span the Stockton Channel. The bridges are approximately 2725’ in length. The existing deck will be replaced, and the existing superstructure elements will be strengthened to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. The existing bridge railings will also be upgraded to meet the latest FHWA safety standards. The existing substructure will be evaluated and rehabilitated to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. Additionally, the existing piers will be analyzed for scour, and scour counter measures will be utilized as required. The bridge piers that are located within navigational waters will also be protected from impact by sea vessels by use of fender systems as required. This project will require traffic handling as I-5 is a major corridor for goods and services movement. The environmental aspects due to the work in the waterway, as well as any right of way impacts will be addressed. Coordination with multiple partners and stakeholders will be required, as well as utility coordination. There will also be coordination with the US Coast Guard as the project is located within navigational waters. This project also entails the construction of a new standalone structure which will function as an offramp to Pershing Avenue. This new structure will connect I-5 Northbound in the vicinity of SR 4 to the northbound Pershing Avenue, it will widen the I-5 Norhtbound, and span the Stockton Channel.
Caltrans, District 10 proposes the following project:

The&nbsp;Stockton Channel VIaduct Bridge Rehab project&nbsp;would&nbsp;rehabilitate the northbound and the southbound bridges on I-5 that span the Stockton Channel. The bridges are approximately 2725’ in length. The existing deck will be replaced, and the existing superstructure elements will be strengthened to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. The existing bridge railings will also be upgraded to meet the latest FHWA safety standards. The existing substructure will be evaluated and rehabilitated to meet current AASHTO LRFD standards. Additionally, the existing piers will be analyzed for scour, and scour counter measures will be utilized as required. The bridge piers that are located within navigational waters will also be protected from impact by sea vessels by use of fender systems as required. This project will require traffic handling as I-5 is a major corridor for goods and services movement. The environmental aspects due to the work in the waterway, as well as any right of way impacts will be addressed. Coordination with multiple partners and stakeholders will be required, as well as utility coordination. There will also be coordination with the US Coast Guard as the project is located within navigational waters. This project also entails the construction of a new standalone structure which will function as an offramp to Pershing Avenue. This new structure will connect I-5 Northbound in the vicinity of SR 4 to the northbound Pershing Avenue, it will widen the I-5 Norhtbound, and span the Stockton Channel.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Galveston District, has received a permit application for a U.S. Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from Dow Chemical Company (Dow) (SWG–2016–01027) for the Harris Reservoir Expansion Project (proposed Project). The primary federal involvement associated with the proposed action (proposed Project) is the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), and the construction of structures and/or work that may affect navigable waters.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Galveston District, has received a permit application for a U.S. Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from Dow Chemical Company (Dow) (SWG–2016–01027) for the Harris Reservoir Expansion Project (proposed Project). The primary federal involvement associated with the proposed action (proposed Project) is the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), and the construction of structures and/or work that may affect navigable waters.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Galveston District, has received a permit application for a U.S. Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from Dow Chemical Company (Dow) (SWG–2016–01027) for the Harris Reservoir Expansion Project (proposed Project). The primary federal involvement associated with the proposed action (proposed Project) is the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), and the construction of structures and/or work that may affect navigable waters.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Galveston District, has received a permit application for a U.S. Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from Dow Chemical Company (Dow) (SWG–2016–01027) for the Harris Reservoir Expansion Project (proposed Project). The primary federal involvement associated with the proposed action (proposed Project) is the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), and the construction of structures and/or work that may affect navigable waters.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to widen the existing roadway on State Route (SR) 70 in Yuba County from South Honcut Creek Bridge [Bridge No. 16-0020] to East Gridley Road in Butte County by adding an additional 12-foot lane on both directions of the highway. The total length of the project is 4.1 miles.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to widen the existing roadway on State Route (SR) 70 in Yuba County from South Honcut Creek Bridge [Bridge No. 16-0020] to East Gridley Road in Butte County by adding an additional 12-foot lane on both directions of the highway. The total length of the project is 4.1 miles.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to widen the existing roadway on State Route (SR) 70 in Yuba County from South Honcut Creek Bridge [Bridge No. 16-0020] to East Gridley Road in Butte County by adding an additional 12-foot lane on both directions of the highway. The total length of the project is 4.1 miles.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to widen the existing roadway on State Route (SR) 70 in Yuba County from South Honcut Creek Bridge [Bridge No. 16-0020] to East Gridley Road in Butte County by adding an additional 12-foot lane on both directions of the highway. The total length of the project is 4.1 miles.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to widen the existing roadway on State Route (SR) 70 in Yuba County from South Honcut Creek Bridge [Bridge No. 16-0020] to East Gridley Road in Butte County by adding an additional 12-foot lane on both directions of the highway. The total length of the project is 4.1 miles.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 proposes to restore
and extend the life of the existing pavement on U.S. Interstate 10 (I-10) from Caltrans
post mile (PM) 134.00 to 156.50 within the city of Blythe and unincorporated portions
of Riverside County (Project). The Scope of the work includes; removal of existing
mainline AC pavement, removal of existing inside and outside shoulders, removal and
replacement of existing drainage inlets, all dikes, and over-side drains; removal and
replacement of all rumble strips, removal of guardrails and installation of Midwest
Guardrail System (MGS) with vegetation control; mill and overlay of all on and off
ramps with HMA- including those at the Wiley’s Well Rest Area; construction of CRCP
or JPCP and the associated base for traveled-way and all shoulders, including outside
shoulder backing on both roadbeds; widening of existing bridges, regrading of the
median and areas between the shoulders and the Caltrans ROW; construction of a
10-foot lane (cross-over lane) in the inside shoulder for traffic control; restriping,
construct reinforced concrete slope paving on all structures; and upgrading of the
existing ADA facilities at ramp termini.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 proposes to restore
and extend the life of the existing pavement on U.S. Interstate 10 (I-10) from Caltrans
post mile (PM) 134.00 to 156.50 within the city of Blythe and unincorporated portions
of Riverside County (Project). The Scope of the work includes; removal of existing
mainline AC pavement, removal of existing inside and outside shoulders, removal and
replacement of existing drainage inlets, all dikes, and over-side drains; removal and
replacement of all rumble strips, removal of guardrails and installation of Midwest
Guardrail System (MGS) with vegetation control; mill and overlay of all on and off
ramps with HMA- including those at the Wiley’s Well Rest Area; construction of CRCP
or JPCP and the associated base for traveled-way and all shoulders, including outside
shoulder backing on both roadbeds; widening of existing bridges, regrading of the
median and areas between the shoulders and the Caltrans ROW; construction of a
10-foot lane (cross-over lane) in the inside shoulder for traffic control; restriping,
construct reinforced concrete slope paving on all structures; and upgrading of the
existing ADA facilities at ramp termini.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 proposes to restore
and extend the life of the existing pavement on U.S. Interstate 10 (I-10) from Caltrans
post mile (PM) 134.00 to 156.50 within the city of Blythe and unincorporated portions
of Riverside County (Project). The Scope of the work includes; removal of existing
mainline AC pavement, removal of existing inside and outside shoulders, removal and
replacement of existing drainage inlets, all dikes, and over-side drains; removal and
replacement of all rumble strips, removal of guardrails and installation of Midwest
Guardrail System (MGS) with vegetation control; mill and overlay of all on and off
ramps with HMA- including those at the Wiley’s Well Rest Area; construction of CRCP
or JPCP and the associated base for traveled-way and all shoulders, including outside
shoulder backing on both roadbeds; widening of existing bridges, regrading of the
median and areas between the shoulders and the Caltrans ROW; construction of a
10-foot lane (cross-over lane) in the inside shoulder for traffic control; restriping,
construct reinforced concrete slope paving on all structures; and upgrading of the
existing ADA facilities at ramp termini.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 proposes to restore
and extend the life of the existing pavement on U.S. Interstate 10 (I-10) from Caltrans
post mile (PM) 134.00 to 156.50 within the city of Blythe and unincorporated portions
of Riverside County (Project). The Scope of the work includes; removal of existing
mainline AC pavement, removal of existing inside and outside shoulders, removal and
replacement of existing drainage inlets, all dikes, and over-side drains; removal and
replacement of all rumble strips, removal of guardrails and installation of Midwest
Guardrail System (MGS) with vegetation control; mill and overlay of all on and off
ramps with HMA- including those at the Wiley’s Well Rest Area; construction of CRCP
or JPCP and the associated base for traveled-way and all shoulders, including outside
shoulder backing on both roadbeds; widening of existing bridges, regrading of the
median and areas between the shoulders and the Caltrans ROW; construction of a
10-foot lane (cross-over lane) in the inside shoulder for traffic control; restriping,
construct reinforced concrete slope paving on all structures; and upgrading of the
existing ADA facilities at ramp termini.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 proposes to restore
and extend the life of the existing pavement on U.S. Interstate 10 (I-10) from Caltrans
post mile (PM) 134.00 to 156.50 within the city of Blythe and unincorporated portions
of Riverside County (Project). The Scope of the work includes; removal of existing
mainline AC pavement, removal of existing inside and outside shoulders, removal and
replacement of existing drainage inlets, all dikes, and over-side drains; removal and
replacement of all rumble strips, removal of guardrails and installation of Midwest
Guardrail System (MGS) with vegetation control; mill and overlay of all on and off
ramps with HMA- including those at the Wiley’s Well Rest Area; construction of CRCP
or JPCP and the associated base for traveled-way and all shoulders, including outside
shoulder backing on both roadbeds; widening of existing bridges, regrading of the
median and areas between the shoulders and the Caltrans ROW; construction of a
10-foot lane (cross-over lane) in the inside shoulder for traffic control; restriping,
construct reinforced concrete slope paving on all structures; and upgrading of the
existing ADA facilities at ramp termini.
Consultation will evaluate the effects of the action on&nbsp;Bull Trout, Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Habitat Improvement.
Consultation will evaluate the effects of the action on&nbsp;Bull Trout, Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Habitat Improvement.
Consultation will evaluate the effects of the action on&nbsp;Bull Trout, Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Habitat Improvement.
Consultation will evaluate the effects of the action on&nbsp;Bull Trout, Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Habitat Improvement.
MSHCP Consistency Letter Obtained
MSHCP Consistency Letter Obtained
MSHCP Consistency Letter Obtained
MSHCP Consistency Letter Obtained
The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to replace and improve the current surface water intake and fish passage (SWISP) structure on Icicle Creek near Leavenworth, Washington.&nbsp; The SWISP provides a constant and clean source of water for the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LFNH) and passage for listed and non-listed fish on Icicle Creek.&nbsp; The current SWISP structure does not meet several regulatory standards related to ESA take and fish passage and is not efficient in the delivery of water to the LFNH.&nbsp; The purpose of SWISP project is to minimize the take of ESA listed fish species, provide fish passage that meets current Federal and State regulatory standards, and ensure safe, reliable, delivery of LFNHs surface water rights from Icicle Creek necessary for the operation of the LFNH.&nbsp; A new roughened channel for fish passage, drum screens for improved ESA compliant water intake, and pipeline improvements to the LFNH are the main components of this proposed project.
The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to replace and improve the current surface water intake and fish passage (SWISP) structure on Icicle Creek near Leavenworth, Washington.&nbsp; The SWISP provides a constant and clean source of water for the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LFNH) and passage for listed and non-listed fish on Icicle Creek.&nbsp; The current SWISP structure does not meet several regulatory standards related to ESA take and fish passage and is not efficient in the delivery of water to the LFNH.&nbsp; The purpose of SWISP project is to minimize the take of ESA listed fish species, provide fish passage that meets current Federal and State regulatory standards, and ensure safe, reliable, delivery of LFNHs surface water rights from Icicle Creek necessary for the operation of the LFNH.&nbsp; A new roughened channel for fish passage, drum screens for improved ESA compliant water intake, and pipeline improvements to the LFNH are the main components of this proposed project.
The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to replace and improve the current surface water intake and fish passage (SWISP) structure on Icicle Creek near Leavenworth, Washington.&nbsp; The SWISP provides a constant and clean source of water for the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LFNH) and passage for listed and non-listed fish on Icicle Creek.&nbsp; The current SWISP structure does not meet several regulatory standards related to ESA take and fish passage and is not efficient in the delivery of water to the LFNH.&nbsp; The purpose of SWISP project is to minimize the take of ESA listed fish species, provide fish passage that meets current Federal and State regulatory standards, and ensure safe, reliable, delivery of LFNHs surface water rights from Icicle Creek necessary for the operation of the LFNH.&nbsp; A new roughened channel for fish passage, drum screens for improved ESA compliant water intake, and pipeline improvements to the LFNH are the main components of this proposed project.
The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to replace and improve the current surface water intake and fish passage (SWISP) structure on Icicle Creek near Leavenworth, Washington.&nbsp; The SWISP provides a constant and clean source of water for the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LFNH) and passage for listed and non-listed fish on Icicle Creek.&nbsp; The current SWISP structure does not meet several regulatory standards related to ESA take and fish passage and is not efficient in the delivery of water to the LFNH.&nbsp; The purpose of SWISP project is to minimize the take of ESA listed fish species, provide fish passage that meets current Federal and State regulatory standards, and ensure safe, reliable, delivery of LFNHs surface water rights from Icicle Creek necessary for the operation of the LFNH.&nbsp; A new roughened channel for fish passage, drum screens for improved ESA compliant water intake, and pipeline improvements to the LFNH are the main components of this proposed project.
FWS does not anticipate a consultation for this project. We assume DOT included milestones related&nbsp;to two plant species whose range overlap the action area for this project. However, no suitable habitat was found within the action area and 'no effect' determinations are anticipated for both species.&nbsp; A No Effect determination by DOT is not a consultation.
FWS does not anticipate a consultation for this project. We assume DOT included milestones related&nbsp;to two plant species whose range overlap the action area for this project. However, no suitable habitat was found within the action area and 'no effect' determinations are anticipated for both species.&nbsp; A No Effect determination by DOT is not a consultation.
FWS does not anticipate a consultation for this project. We assume DOT included milestones related&nbsp;to two plant species whose range overlap the action area for this project. However, no suitable habitat was found within the action area and 'no effect' determinations are anticipated for both species.&nbsp; A No Effect determination by DOT is not a consultation.
FWS does not anticipate a consultation for this project. We assume DOT included milestones related&nbsp;to two plant species whose range overlap the action area for this project. However, no suitable habitat was found within the action area and 'no effect' determinations are anticipated for both species.&nbsp; A No Effect determination by DOT is not a consultation.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed&nbsp;an Environmental Assessment for the construction of the new Des Moines Transload Facility in Des Moines, Iowa.&nbsp; The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMAMPO) proposes to construct the transload facility in Central Iowa to reduce the volume of freight trucked within a 150-mile radius. The transload facility will use Class 1 and 2 freight rail shippers to transport goods in and out of the Des Moines area. Anticipated users of the facility include a wide variety of companies that handle large volumes of commodities that move most efficiently in railcar volumes: minerals, steel, chemicals, lumber, finished products, agricultural products, food, fertilizers, products for the development of Iowa’s growing wind energy industry, roofing materials, pipe, sheet metal, pilings, beams, plastics, aggregates, salts, oils, green bio-products, feed additives, generators, transformers, farm machinery, construction equipment, and military equipment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed&nbsp;an Environmental Assessment for the construction of the new Des Moines Transload Facility in Des Moines, Iowa.&nbsp; The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMAMPO) proposes to construct the transload facility in Central Iowa to reduce the volume of freight trucked within a 150-mile radius. The transload facility will use Class 1 and 2 freight rail shippers to transport goods in and out of the Des Moines area. Anticipated users of the facility include a wide variety of companies that handle large volumes of commodities that move most efficiently in railcar volumes: minerals, steel, chemicals, lumber, finished products, agricultural products, food, fertilizers, products for the development of Iowa’s growing wind energy industry, roofing materials, pipe, sheet metal, pilings, beams, plastics, aggregates, salts, oils, green bio-products, feed additives, generators, transformers, farm machinery, construction equipment, and military equipment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed&nbsp;an Environmental Assessment for the construction of the new Des Moines Transload Facility in Des Moines, Iowa.&nbsp; The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMAMPO) proposes to construct the transload facility in Central Iowa to reduce the volume of freight trucked within a 150-mile radius. The transload facility will use Class 1 and 2 freight rail shippers to transport goods in and out of the Des Moines area. Anticipated users of the facility include a wide variety of companies that handle large volumes of commodities that move most efficiently in railcar volumes: minerals, steel, chemicals, lumber, finished products, agricultural products, food, fertilizers, products for the development of Iowa’s growing wind energy industry, roofing materials, pipe, sheet metal, pilings, beams, plastics, aggregates, salts, oils, green bio-products, feed additives, generators, transformers, farm machinery, construction equipment, and military equipment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed&nbsp;an Environmental Assessment for the construction of the new Des Moines Transload Facility in Des Moines, Iowa.&nbsp; The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMAMPO) proposes to construct the transload facility in Central Iowa to reduce the volume of freight trucked within a 150-mile radius. The transload facility will use Class 1 and 2 freight rail shippers to transport goods in and out of the Des Moines area. Anticipated users of the facility include a wide variety of companies that handle large volumes of commodities that move most efficiently in railcar volumes: minerals, steel, chemicals, lumber, finished products, agricultural products, food, fertilizers, products for the development of Iowa’s growing wind energy industry, roofing materials, pipe, sheet metal, pilings, beams, plastics, aggregates, salts, oils, green bio-products, feed additives, generators, transformers, farm machinery, construction equipment, and military equipment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed&nbsp;an Environmental Assessment for the construction of the new Des Moines Transload Facility in Des Moines, Iowa.&nbsp; The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMAMPO) proposes to construct the transload facility in Central Iowa to reduce the volume of freight trucked within a 150-mile radius. The transload facility will use Class 1 and 2 freight rail shippers to transport goods in and out of the Des Moines area. Anticipated users of the facility include a wide variety of companies that handle large volumes of commodities that move most efficiently in railcar volumes: minerals, steel, chemicals, lumber, finished products, agricultural products, food, fertilizers, products for the development of Iowa’s growing wind energy industry, roofing materials, pipe, sheet metal, pilings, beams, plastics, aggregates, salts, oils, green bio-products, feed additives, generators, transformers, farm machinery, construction equipment, and military equipment.
FRA and the project sponsor, DMAMPO, conducted an environmental review, including preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., that was issued on June 25, 2020. FRA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project on August 27, 2020.&nbsp;
FRA and the project sponsor, DMAMPO, conducted an environmental review, including preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., that was issued on June 25, 2020. FRA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project on August 27, 2020.&nbsp;
FRA and the project sponsor, DMAMPO, conducted an environmental review, including preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., that was issued on June 25, 2020. FRA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project on August 27, 2020.&nbsp;
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment.
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an&nbsp;Environmental Assessment (EA)&nbsp;to evaluate a potential interchange on Interstate 15&nbsp;(I-15)&nbsp;near milepost 258.&nbsp;This study will comply with the requirements of&nbsp;the&nbsp;National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).&nbsp;A new interchange in this location would connect to 1600 South in Springville and 2700 North in Spanish Fork.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an&nbsp;Environmental Assessment (EA)&nbsp;to evaluate a potential interchange on Interstate 15&nbsp;(I-15)&nbsp;near milepost 258.&nbsp;This study will comply with the requirements of&nbsp;the&nbsp;National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).&nbsp;A new interchange in this location would connect to 1600 South in Springville and 2700 North in Spanish Fork.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an&nbsp;Environmental Assessment (EA)&nbsp;to evaluate a potential interchange on Interstate 15&nbsp;(I-15)&nbsp;near milepost 258.&nbsp;This study will comply with the requirements of&nbsp;the&nbsp;National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).&nbsp;A new interchange in this location would connect to 1600 South in Springville and 2700 North in Spanish Fork.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an&nbsp;Environmental Assessment (EA)&nbsp;to evaluate a potential interchange on Interstate 15&nbsp;(I-15)&nbsp;near milepost 258.&nbsp;This study will comply with the requirements of&nbsp;the&nbsp;National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).&nbsp;A new interchange in this location would connect to 1600 South in Springville and 2700 North in Spanish Fork.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is&nbsp;preparing&nbsp;an&nbsp;Environmental Assessment (EA)&nbsp;to evaluate a potential interchange on Interstate 15&nbsp;(I-15)&nbsp;near milepost 258.&nbsp;This study will comply with the requirements of&nbsp;the&nbsp;National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).&nbsp;A new interchange in this location would connect to 1600 South in Springville and 2700 North in Spanish Fork.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the area affected by the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge (EQRB). The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.



The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. 

EFH Consultation Milestones were coordinated to be concurrent with ESA Milestones
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the area affected by the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge (EQRB). The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.



The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. 

EFH Consultation Milestones were coordinated to be concurrent with ESA Milestones
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the area affected by the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge (EQRB). The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.



The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. 

EFH Consultation Milestones were coordinated to be concurrent with ESA Milestones
FRA and Monroe County&nbsp;conducted an environmental review, including preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., that was issued on July 8, 2020. FRA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project on August 28, 2020.
FRA and Monroe County&nbsp;conducted an environmental review, including preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., that was issued on July 8, 2020. FRA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project on August 28, 2020.
FRA and Monroe County&nbsp;conducted an environmental review, including preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., that was issued on July 8, 2020. FRA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project on August 28, 2020.
FRA and Monroe County&nbsp;conducted an environmental review, including preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., that was issued on July 8, 2020. FRA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project on August 28, 2020.
FRA and Monroe County&nbsp;conducted an environmental review, including preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., that was issued on July 8, 2020. FRA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project on August 28, 2020.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)&nbsp;in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771 and 774. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless it determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
The Seldovia Bay Ferry Dock Refurbishment Project proposed by Seldovia Village Tribe would relocate the existing floating ferry dock in the City of Seldovia, Alaska approximately 40 feet closer to the shoreline, and rotate it approximately 90 degrees. This reconfiguration would lessen the impact of northerly wave swells on the structure. The existing dock is not safe or functional for vessels or pedestrians. Since the construction of the existing dock approximately ten years ago, the piles are no longer secure and shift during wave swells. The purpose of the Project is to refurbish the existing dock to bring it into a usable, safe, and sustainable condition. Alternatives considered include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The Seldovia Bay Ferry Dock Refurbishment Project proposed by Seldovia Village Tribe would relocate the existing floating ferry dock in the City of Seldovia, Alaska approximately 40 feet closer to the shoreline, and rotate it approximately 90 degrees. This reconfiguration would lessen the impact of northerly wave swells on the structure. The existing dock is not safe or functional for vessels or pedestrians. Since the construction of the existing dock approximately ten years ago, the piles are no longer secure and shift during wave swells. The purpose of the Project is to refurbish the existing dock to bring it into a usable, safe, and sustainable condition. Alternatives considered include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The Seldovia Bay Ferry Dock Refurbishment Project proposed by Seldovia Village Tribe would relocate the existing floating ferry dock in the City of Seldovia, Alaska approximately 40 feet closer to the shoreline, and rotate it approximately 90 degrees. This reconfiguration would lessen the impact of northerly wave swells on the structure. The existing dock is not safe or functional for vessels or pedestrians. Since the construction of the existing dock approximately ten years ago, the piles are no longer secure and shift during wave swells. The purpose of the Project is to refurbish the existing dock to bring it into a usable, safe, and sustainable condition. Alternatives considered include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The Seldovia Bay Ferry Dock Refurbishment Project proposed by Seldovia Village Tribe would relocate the existing floating ferry dock in the City of Seldovia, Alaska approximately 40 feet closer to the shoreline, and rotate it approximately 90 degrees. This reconfiguration would lessen the impact of northerly wave swells on the structure. The existing dock is not safe or functional for vessels or pedestrians. Since the construction of the existing dock approximately ten years ago, the piles are no longer secure and shift during wave swells. The purpose of the Project is to refurbish the existing dock to bring it into a usable, safe, and sustainable condition. Alternatives considered include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The Seldovia Bay Ferry Dock Refurbishment Project proposed by Seldovia Village Tribe would relocate the existing floating ferry dock in the City of Seldovia, Alaska approximately 40 feet closer to the shoreline, and rotate it approximately 90 degrees. This reconfiguration would lessen the impact of northerly wave swells on the structure. The existing dock is not safe or functional for vessels or pedestrians. Since the construction of the existing dock approximately ten years ago, the piles are no longer secure and shift during wave swells. The purpose of the Project is to refurbish the existing dock to bring it into a usable, safe, and sustainable condition. Alternatives considered include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The Seldovia Bay Ferry Dock Refurbishment Project proposed by Seldovia Village Tribe would relocate the existing floating ferry dock in the City of Seldovia, Alaska approximately 40 feet closer to the shoreline, and rotate it approximately 90 degrees. This reconfiguration would lessen the impact of northerly wave swells on the structure. The existing dock is not safe or functional for vessels or pedestrians. Since the construction of the existing dock approximately ten years ago, the piles are no longer secure and shift during wave swells. The purpose of the Project is to refurbish the existing dock to bring it into a usable, safe, and sustainable condition. Alternatives considered include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The Seldovia Bay Ferry Dock Refurbishment Project proposed by Seldovia Village Tribe would relocate the existing floating ferry dock in the City of Seldovia, Alaska approximately 40 feet closer to the shoreline, and rotate it approximately 90 degrees. This reconfiguration would lessen the impact of northerly wave swells on the structure. The existing dock is not safe or functional for vessels or pedestrians. Since the construction of the existing dock approximately ten years ago, the piles are no longer secure and shift during wave swells. The purpose of the Project is to refurbish the existing dock to bring it into a usable, safe, and sustainable condition. Alternatives considered include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
The Seldovia Bay Ferry Dock Refurbishment Project proposed by Seldovia Village Tribe would relocate the existing floating ferry dock in the City of Seldovia, Alaska approximately 40 feet closer to the shoreline, and rotate it approximately 90 degrees. This reconfiguration would lessen the impact of northerly wave swells on the structure. The existing dock is not safe or functional for vessels or pedestrians. Since the construction of the existing dock approximately ten years ago, the piles are no longer secure and shift during wave swells. The purpose of the Project is to refurbish the existing dock to bring it into a usable, safe, and sustainable condition. Alternatives considered include a No Build and a Build Alternative.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act permit
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act permit
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act permit
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act permit
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act permit
FEMA determined that the project is classified as "no rise" or "zero rise" and does not need a CLOMR unless this changes.&nbsp;
FEMA determined that the project is classified as "no rise" or "zero rise" and does not need a CLOMR unless this changes.&nbsp;
FEMA determined that the project is classified as "no rise" or "zero rise" and does not need a CLOMR unless this changes.&nbsp;
FEMA determined that the project is classified as "no rise" or "zero rise" and does not need a CLOMR unless this changes.&nbsp;
FEMA determined that the project is classified as "no rise" or "zero rise" and does not need a CLOMR unless this changes.&nbsp;
401 Water Quality Certification
401 Water Quality Certification
401 Water Quality Certification
401 Water Quality Certification
401 Water Quality Certification
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The COP was finalized on 1/18/2022 and can be viewed at&nbsp;&nbsp;https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The COP was finalized on 1/18/2022 and can be viewed at&nbsp;&nbsp;https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The COP was finalized on 1/18/2022 and can be viewed at&nbsp;&nbsp;https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The COP was finalized on 1/18/2022 and can be viewed at&nbsp;&nbsp;https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork.
An updated COP was submitted which changed the lease boundaries and the turbine layout to address navigational safety issues raised by the commercial fishing industry, and legally assigned the lease to a new entity, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC. &nbsp;Prior to the lease assignment, the lease was held by Deepwater New England, LLC. The updated COP, lease assignment, and BOEM’s development of a more robust cumulative-impact analysis for offshore wind projects moving forward necessitated additional interagency coordination in developing the FAST-41 CPP and permitting timetable. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The COP was finalized on 1/18/2022 and can be viewed at&nbsp;&nbsp;https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork.
The Corps 404 permit action was cancelled on the Dashboard in March 2022 due to FERC’s dismissal, without prejudice, of the license application for the LEAPs project, which became a final Commission action on March 24, 2022.&nbsp;
The Corps 404 permit action was cancelled on the Dashboard in March 2022 due to FERC’s dismissal, without prejudice, of the license application for the LEAPs project, which became a final Commission action on March 24, 2022.&nbsp;
The Corps 404 permit action was cancelled on the Dashboard in March 2022 due to FERC’s dismissal, without prejudice, of the license application for the LEAPs project, which became a final Commission action on March 24, 2022.&nbsp;
The Corps 404 permit action was cancelled on the Dashboard in March 2022 due to FERC’s dismissal, without prejudice, of the license application for the LEAPs project, which became a final Commission action on March 24, 2022.&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; The endangered Southern California Distinct Population Segment of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and designated critical habitat for this species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect this resource, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; The endangered Southern California Distinct Population Segment of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and designated critical habitat for this species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect this resource, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; The endangered Southern California Distinct Population Segment of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and designated critical habitat for this species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect this resource, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; The endangered Southern California Distinct Population Segment of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and designated critical habitat for this species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect this resource, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
On December 9, 2021,&nbsp;Commission staff issued a letter dismissing, without prejudice, the license application for the project.&nbsp; On January 7, 2022, the project sponsor filed a request for rehearing or, in the alternative, motion for temporary stay of dismissal of license application.&nbsp; On March 24, 2022, the Commission issued an order sustaining the result of the December 9, 2021 order and denying the motion for temporary stay.&nbsp;
Section 404 permitting for project impacts. The piping of Parley’s Creek would require a USACE Nationwide Permit 14 for Linear Transportation Projects. The permit is required for a loss of waters of the United States that is between 0.1 and 0.5 acre. UDOT will submit the permit once funding has been identified to construct the Selected Alternative.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts. The piping of Parley’s Creek would require a USACE Nationwide Permit 14 for Linear Transportation Projects. The permit is required for a loss of waters of the United States that is between 0.1 and 0.5 acre. UDOT will submit the permit once funding has been identified to construct the Selected Alternative.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts. The piping of Parley’s Creek would require a USACE Nationwide Permit 14 for Linear Transportation Projects. The permit is required for a loss of waters of the United States that is between 0.1 and 0.5 acre. UDOT will submit the permit once funding has been identified to construct the Selected Alternative.
Section 404 permitting for project impacts. The piping of Parley’s Creek would require a USACE Nationwide Permit 14 for Linear Transportation Projects. The permit is required for a loss of waters of the United States that is between 0.1 and 0.5 acre. UDOT will submit the permit once funding has been identified to construct the Selected Alternative.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
The EIS is lead by DOI-BIA.
DOI-BIA Right of Way for project.
DOI-BIA Right of Way for project.
DOI-BIA Right of Way for project.
DOI-BIA Right of Way for project.
DOI-BIA Right of Way for project.
The ESA Biological Opinion was&nbsp;completed together with the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response in a single document on January 10, 2020. However, the FERC’s March 19, 2020 order authorizing the Jordan Cove LNG Project incorporated the Blue Ridge Variation, which would deviate from the project sponsor’s proposed route.&nbsp; In a letter dated June 23, 2020, Commission staff requested, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the re-initiation of formal consultation to address the Blue Ridge Variation.&nbsp; In letters dated July 1, 2020 and September 4, 2020, NMFS responded to FERC's request indicating that it did not contain sufficient information to initiate consultation. The information needed to re-initiate the consultation was received on October 19, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On May 14, 2021 NMFS received a letter from FERC withdrawing the request for re-initiation of the consultation.&nbsp; Therefore, the re-initiated consultation has been cancelled.&nbsp;
The ESA Biological Opinion was&nbsp;completed together with the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response in a single document on January 10, 2020. However, the FERC’s March 19, 2020 order authorizing the Jordan Cove LNG Project incorporated the Blue Ridge Variation, which would deviate from the project sponsor’s proposed route.&nbsp; In a letter dated June 23, 2020, Commission staff requested, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the re-initiation of formal consultation to address the Blue Ridge Variation.&nbsp; In letters dated July 1, 2020 and September 4, 2020, NMFS responded to FERC's request indicating that it did not contain sufficient information to initiate consultation. The information needed to re-initiate the consultation was received on October 19, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On May 14, 2021 NMFS received a letter from FERC withdrawing the request for re-initiation of the consultation.&nbsp; Therefore, the re-initiated consultation has been cancelled.&nbsp;
The ESA Biological Opinion was&nbsp;completed together with the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response in a single document on January 10, 2020. However, the FERC’s March 19, 2020 order authorizing the Jordan Cove LNG Project incorporated the Blue Ridge Variation, which would deviate from the project sponsor’s proposed route.&nbsp; In a letter dated June 23, 2020, Commission staff requested, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the re-initiation of formal consultation to address the Blue Ridge Variation.&nbsp; In letters dated July 1, 2020 and September 4, 2020, NMFS responded to FERC's request indicating that it did not contain sufficient information to initiate consultation. The information needed to re-initiate the consultation was received on October 19, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On May 14, 2021 NMFS received a letter from FERC withdrawing the request for re-initiation of the consultation.&nbsp; Therefore, the re-initiated consultation has been cancelled.&nbsp;
The ESA Biological Opinion was&nbsp;completed together with the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Response in a single document on January 10, 2020. However, the FERC’s March 19, 2020 order authorizing the Jordan Cove LNG Project incorporated the Blue Ridge Variation, which would deviate from the project sponsor’s proposed route.&nbsp; In a letter dated June 23, 2020, Commission staff requested, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the re-initiation of formal consultation to address the Blue Ridge Variation.&nbsp; In letters dated July 1, 2020 and September 4, 2020, NMFS responded to FERC's request indicating that it did not contain sufficient information to initiate consultation. The information needed to re-initiate the consultation was received on October 19, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On May 14, 2021 NMFS received a letter from FERC withdrawing the request for re-initiation of the consultation.&nbsp; Therefore, the re-initiated consultation has been cancelled.&nbsp;
The Essential Fish Habitat Response was&nbsp;completed together with the ESA Biological Opinion in a single document on January 10. 2020. However, the FERC’s March 19, 2020 order authorizing the Jordan Cove LNG Project incorporated the Blue Ridge Variation, which would deviate from the project sponsor’s proposed route.&nbsp; In a letter dated June 23, 2020, Commission staff requested, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the re-initiation of formal consultation to address the Blue Ridge Variation.&nbsp; In letters dated July 1, 2020 and September 4, 2020, NMFS responded to FERC's request indicating that it did not contain sufficient information to initiate consultation. The information needed to re-initiate the consultation was received on October 19, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On May 14, 2021 NMFS received a letter from FERC withdrawing the request for re-initiation of the consultation.&nbsp; Therefore, the re-initiated consultation has been cancelled.&nbsp;
The Essential Fish Habitat Response was&nbsp;completed together with the ESA Biological Opinion in a single document on January 10. 2020. However, the FERC’s March 19, 2020 order authorizing the Jordan Cove LNG Project incorporated the Blue Ridge Variation, which would deviate from the project sponsor’s proposed route.&nbsp; In a letter dated June 23, 2020, Commission staff requested, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the re-initiation of formal consultation to address the Blue Ridge Variation.&nbsp; In letters dated July 1, 2020 and September 4, 2020, NMFS responded to FERC's request indicating that it did not contain sufficient information to initiate consultation. The information needed to re-initiate the consultation was received on October 19, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On May 14, 2021 NMFS received a letter from FERC withdrawing the request for re-initiation of the consultation.&nbsp; Therefore, the re-initiated consultation has been cancelled.&nbsp;
The Essential Fish Habitat Response was&nbsp;completed together with the ESA Biological Opinion in a single document on January 10. 2020. However, the FERC’s March 19, 2020 order authorizing the Jordan Cove LNG Project incorporated the Blue Ridge Variation, which would deviate from the project sponsor’s proposed route.&nbsp; In a letter dated June 23, 2020, Commission staff requested, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the re-initiation of formal consultation to address the Blue Ridge Variation.&nbsp; In letters dated July 1, 2020 and September 4, 2020, NMFS responded to FERC's request indicating that it did not contain sufficient information to initiate consultation. The information needed to re-initiate the consultation was received on October 19, 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On May 14, 2021 NMFS received a letter from FERC withdrawing the request for re-initiation of the consultation.&nbsp; Therefore, the re-initiated consultation has been cancelled.&nbsp;
This consultation was initially completed but will need to be re-initiated due to project design changes. &nbsp;The project will now include a shared-use path on the Ashley River Bridge.
This consultation was initially completed but will need to be re-initiated due to project design changes. &nbsp;The project will now include a shared-use path on the Ashley River Bridge.
This consultation was initially completed but will need to be re-initiated due to project design changes. &nbsp;The project will now include a shared-use path on the Ashley River Bridge.
This consultation was cancelled and has been re-initiated due to project design changes. &nbsp;The project will now include a shared-use path on the Ashley River Bridge.
This consultation was cancelled and has been re-initiated due to project design changes. &nbsp;The project will now include a shared-use path on the Ashley River Bridge.
This consultation was cancelled and has been re-initiated due to project design changes. &nbsp;The project will now include a shared-use path on the Ashley River Bridge.
This consultation was cancelled and has been re-initiated due to project design changes. &nbsp;The project will now include a shared-use path on the Ashley River Bridge.
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
EIS during Feasibility Study Phase
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with FWS when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under FWS’s jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with FWS when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under FWS’s jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with FWS when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under FWS’s jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with FWS when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under FWS’s jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take might affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or might affect such species’ critical habitat.&nbsp; ESA-listed species exist throughout much of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires federal agencies to consult with USFWS on any proposed water development project that is undertaken or authorized by them. This consultation procedure is to promote conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in connection with water resource development.&nbsp;
Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires federal agencies to consult with USFWS on any proposed water development project that is undertaken or authorized by them. This consultation procedure is to promote conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in connection with water resource development.&nbsp;
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays project area. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays project area. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH exists throughout all of the area affected by the Nassau County Back Bays project area. The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation.
Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any proposed water development project that is undertaken or authorized by them. This consultation procedure is to promote conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in connection with water resource development. Coordination and consultation under the FWCA is expected to be concurrent with the EFH consultation process and the issuance of the DEIS by the USACE.
Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any proposed water development project that is undertaken or authorized by them. This consultation procedure is to promote conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in connection with water resource development. Coordination and consultation under the FWCA is expected to be concurrent with the EFH consultation process and the issuance of the DEIS by the USACE.
Section 106 Review with SHPO
Section 106 Review with SHPO
Section 106 Review with SHPO
The Project entails development of a liquid natural gas shipping terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, and a 230-mile pipeline across private and Federal lands in southwestern Oregon. The Service completed ESA consultation in January 2020 and determined the Project would adversely affect western snowy plover, Pacific fisher, California marten, several listed plant species, northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet. Although impacts to the latter two species would be substantial, the Service concluded the Project was not likely to jeopardize any species. FERC then selected a Project alignment that was not analyzed in the agency’s prior Biological Assessment. Consequently, on June 23, 2020, FERC requested reinitiation of consultation. After thoroughly reviewing the information FERC provided, the Service notified FERC on July 7, 2020, that reinitiation of consultation cannot begin until additional information and a BA is received. Both agencies agreed to a collaborative process to develop the new information as quickly as possible, contingent on cooperation from Pembina. On December 4, the Service received from FERC the information needed to reinitiate consultation on this project and is reviewing that information to ensure it is complete.
The Project entails development of a liquid natural gas shipping terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, and a 230-mile pipeline across private and Federal lands in southwestern Oregon. The Service completed ESA consultation in January 2020 and determined the Project would adversely affect western snowy plover, Pacific fisher, California marten, several listed plant species, northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet. Although impacts to the latter two species would be substantial, the Service concluded the Project was not likely to jeopardize any species. FERC then selected a Project alignment that was not analyzed in the agency’s prior Biological Assessment. Consequently, on June 23, 2020, FERC requested reinitiation of consultation. After thoroughly reviewing the information FERC provided, the Service notified FERC on July 7, 2020, that reinitiation of consultation cannot begin until additional information and a BA is received. Both agencies agreed to a collaborative process to develop the new information as quickly as possible, contingent on cooperation from Pembina. On December 4, the Service received from FERC the information needed to reinitiate consultation on this project and is reviewing that information to ensure it is complete.
The Project entails development of a liquid natural gas shipping terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, and a 230-mile pipeline across private and Federal lands in southwestern Oregon. The Service completed ESA consultation in January 2020 and determined the Project would adversely affect western snowy plover, Pacific fisher, California marten, several listed plant species, northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet. Although impacts to the latter two species would be substantial, the Service concluded the Project was not likely to jeopardize any species. FERC then selected a Project alignment that was not analyzed in the agency’s prior Biological Assessment. Consequently, on June 23, 2020, FERC requested reinitiation of consultation. After thoroughly reviewing the information FERC provided, the Service notified FERC on July 7, 2020, that reinitiation of consultation cannot begin until additional information and a BA is received. Both agencies agreed to a collaborative process to develop the new information as quickly as possible, contingent on cooperation from Pembina. On December 4, the Service received from FERC the information needed to reinitiate consultation on this project and is reviewing that information to ensure it is complete.
The Project entails development of a liquid natural gas shipping terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, and a 230-mile pipeline across private and Federal lands in southwestern Oregon. The Service completed ESA consultation in January 2020 and determined the Project would adversely affect western snowy plover, Pacific fisher, California marten, several listed plant species, northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet. Although impacts to the latter two species would be substantial, the Service concluded the Project was not likely to jeopardize any species. FERC then selected a Project alignment that was not analyzed in the agency’s prior Biological Assessment. Consequently, on June 23, 2020, FERC requested reinitiation of consultation. After thoroughly reviewing the information FERC provided, the Service notified FERC on July 7, 2020, that reinitiation of consultation cannot begin until additional information and a BA is received. Both agencies agreed to a collaborative process to develop the new information as quickly as possible, contingent on cooperation from Pembina. On December 4, the Service received from FERC the information needed to reinitiate consultation on this project and is reviewing that information to ensure it is complete.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take may affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or critical habitat for such species.&nbsp; The subject proposed action involves the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) permitting of Plains Pipeline, L.P.’s (applicant) proposed oil pipeline replacement project at a crossing on Refugio Creek, in Santa Barbara County, California.&nbsp; This action is of concern because Refugio Creek is within range of the endangered Southern California (SC) distinct population segment of steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss) and is designated as critical habitat for this species.&nbsp; The proposed action has the potential to affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. &nbsp;&nbsp;
			
		
	


&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take may affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or critical habitat for such species.&nbsp; The subject proposed action involves the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) permitting of Plains Pipeline, L.P.’s (applicant) proposed oil pipeline replacement project at a crossing on Refugio Creek, in Santa Barbara County, California.&nbsp; This action is of concern because Refugio Creek is within range of the endangered Southern California (SC) distinct population segment of steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss) and is designated as critical habitat for this species.&nbsp; The proposed action has the potential to affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. &nbsp;&nbsp;
			
		
	


&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take may affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or critical habitat for such species.&nbsp; The subject proposed action involves the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) permitting of Plains Pipeline, L.P.’s (applicant) proposed oil pipeline replacement project at a crossing on Refugio Creek, in Santa Barbara County, California.&nbsp; This action is of concern because Refugio Creek is within range of the endangered Southern California (SC) distinct population segment of steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss) and is designated as critical habitat for this species.&nbsp; The proposed action has the potential to affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. &nbsp;&nbsp;
			
		
	


&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any project or action they take may affect an ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction, or critical habitat for such species.&nbsp; The subject proposed action involves the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) permitting of Plains Pipeline, L.P.’s (applicant) proposed oil pipeline replacement project at a crossing on Refugio Creek, in Santa Barbara County, California.&nbsp; This action is of concern because Refugio Creek is within range of the endangered Southern California (SC) distinct population segment of steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss) and is designated as critical habitat for this species.&nbsp; The proposed action has the potential to affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. &nbsp;&nbsp;
			
		
	


&nbsp;
The Corps federal action includes a section 404 permit to temporarily discharge fill material associated with installation of the replacement pipelines (via trenching and backfill) at 123 separate WOUS crossings.
The Corps federal action includes a section 404 permit to temporarily discharge fill material associated with installation of the replacement pipelines (via trenching and backfill) at 123 separate WOUS crossings.
The Corps federal action includes a section 404 permit to temporarily discharge fill material associated with installation of the replacement pipelines (via trenching and backfill) at 123 separate WOUS crossings.
The Corps federal action includes a section 404 permit to temporarily discharge fill material associated with installation of the replacement pipelines (via trenching and backfill) at 123 separate WOUS crossings.
New Alternative carried forward, additional consultation required.&nbsp;
New Alternative carried forward, additional consultation required.&nbsp;
New Alternative carried forward, additional consultation required.&nbsp;
New Alternative carried forward, additional consultation required.&nbsp;
District is moving forward with the RGP 33 in lieu of the NW permit. ACOE has 15 days to respond.
District is moving forward with the RGP 33 in lieu of the NW permit. ACOE has 15 days to respond.
District is moving forward with the RGP 33 in lieu of the NW permit. ACOE has 15 days to respond.
District is moving forward with the RGP 33 in lieu of the NW permit. ACOE has 15 days to respond.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to to construct managed lanes in both directions on Interstate 5 (I-5) in Sacramento County from I-5/US 50 Interchange to 0.5 mile south of Yolo County line.&nbsp;
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to to construct managed lanes in both directions on Interstate 5 (I-5) in Sacramento County from I-5/US 50 Interchange to 0.5 mile south of Yolo County line.&nbsp;
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to to construct managed lanes in both directions on Interstate 5 (I-5) in Sacramento County from I-5/US 50 Interchange to 0.5 mile south of Yolo County line.&nbsp;
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to to construct managed lanes in both directions on Interstate 5 (I-5) in Sacramento County from I-5/US 50 Interchange to 0.5 mile south of Yolo County line.&nbsp;
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to to construct managed lanes in both directions on Interstate 5 (I-5) in Sacramento County from I-5/US 50 Interchange to 0.5 mile south of Yolo County line.&nbsp;
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under&nbsp;section 401 of the Clean Water Act&nbsp;(CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.&nbsp;
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under&nbsp;section 401 of the Clean Water Act&nbsp;(CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.&nbsp;
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under&nbsp;section 401 of the Clean Water Act&nbsp;(CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.&nbsp;
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under&nbsp;section 401 of the Clean Water Act&nbsp;(CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.&nbsp;
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under&nbsp;section 401 of the Clean Water Act&nbsp;(CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.&nbsp;
FRA, in cooperation with Maryland Department of Transportation and Port Authority prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA, 42U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.

The EA and additional information about the Project is available on the Maryland Port Authority’s website:&nbsp; https://mpa.maryland.gov/pages/hst.aspx
FRA, in cooperation with Maryland Department of Transportation and Port Authority prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA, 42U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.

The EA and additional information about the Project is available on the Maryland Port Authority’s website:&nbsp; https://mpa.maryland.gov/pages/hst.aspx
FRA, in cooperation with Maryland Department of Transportation and Port Authority prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA, 42U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.

The EA and additional information about the Project is available on the Maryland Port Authority’s website:&nbsp; https://mpa.maryland.gov/pages/hst.aspx
FRA, in cooperation with Maryland Department of Transportation and Port Authority prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA, 42U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.

The EA and additional information about the Project is available on the Maryland Port Authority’s website:&nbsp; https://mpa.maryland.gov/pages/hst.aspx
FRA, in cooperation with Maryland Department of Transportation and Port Authority prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA, 42U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.

The EA and additional information about the Project is available on the Maryland Port Authority’s website:&nbsp; https://mpa.maryland.gov/pages/hst.aspx
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) have the authority to regulate these discharges under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA section 401 water quality certifications are issued to applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States (U.S.), including but not limited to the discharge or dredged or fill material.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to evaluate&nbsp;the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to evaluate&nbsp;the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to evaluate&nbsp;the potential environmental impacts of the Project to the human and natural environment.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA).&nbsp; Activities that require authorization include: Installation and scour protection of up to 60 wind turbines, one off-shore electrical service platform, installation of inter-array cables, and export cables from the Wind Development Area to the State Waters of Virginia (3nm from VA coast).
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA).&nbsp; Activities that require authorization include: Installation and scour protection of up to 60 wind turbines, one off-shore electrical service platform, installation of inter-array cables, and export cables from the Wind Development Area to the State Waters of Virginia (3nm from VA coast).
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA).&nbsp; Activities that require authorization include: Installation and scour protection of up to 60 wind turbines, one off-shore electrical service platform, installation of inter-array cables, and export cables from the Wind Development Area to the State Waters of Virginia (3nm from VA coast).
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA).&nbsp; Activities that require authorization include: Installation and scour protection of up to 60 wind turbines, one off-shore electrical service platform, installation of inter-array cables, and export cables from the Wind Development Area to the State Waters of Virginia (3nm from VA coast).
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp; Activities that require authorization include: installation of the cable from 3 nm to the high tide line and any onshore discharges of fill into jurisdictional waters, including wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp; Activities that require authorization include: installation of the cable from 3 nm to the high tide line and any onshore discharges of fill into jurisdictional waters, including wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp; Activities that require authorization include: installation of the cable from 3 nm to the high tide line and any onshore discharges of fill into jurisdictional waters, including wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.&nbsp; Activities that require authorization include: installation of the cable from 3 nm to the high tide line and any onshore discharges of fill into jurisdictional waters, including wetlands.
Amtrak and the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) are co-applicants for the Department of Army permit application and have requested authorization to perform U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulated work within Waters of the United States to facilitate the construction and installation of the Hudson Tunnel Project.
Amtrak and the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) are co-applicants for the Department of Army permit application and have requested authorization to perform U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulated work within Waters of the United States to facilitate the construction and installation of the Hudson Tunnel Project.
Amtrak and the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) are co-applicants for the Department of Army permit application and have requested authorization to perform U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulated work within Waters of the United States to facilitate the construction and installation of the Hudson Tunnel Project.
Amtrak and the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) are co-applicants for the Department of Army permit application and have requested authorization to perform U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulated work within Waters of the United States to facilitate the construction and installation of the Hudson Tunnel Project.
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp; A USACE Real Estate decision and associated Outgrant may also be required.&nbsp; A determination will be made on these requirements once adequate documents from the applicant are received&nbsp;to support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp; A USACE Real Estate decision and associated Outgrant may also be required.&nbsp; A determination will be made on these requirements once adequate documents from the applicant are received&nbsp;to support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp; A USACE Real Estate decision and associated Outgrant may also be required.&nbsp; A determination will be made on these requirements once adequate documents from the applicant are received&nbsp;to support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp; A USACE Real Estate decision and associated Outgrant may also be required.&nbsp; A determination will be made on these requirements once adequate documents from the applicant are received&nbsp;to support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp; A USACE Real Estate decision and associated Outgrant may also be required.&nbsp; A determination will be made on these requirements once adequate documents from the applicant are received&nbsp;to support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.
A Section 408 Permission may be required from the Norfolk District pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). It is marked as a Section 408 requirement until the applicant can provide adequate documents that would support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required from the Norfolk District pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). It is marked as a Section 408 requirement until the applicant can provide adequate documents that would support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required from the Norfolk District pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). It is marked as a Section 408 requirement until the applicant can provide adequate documents that would support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required from the Norfolk District pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). It is marked as a Section 408 requirement until the applicant can provide adequate documents that would support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required from the Norfolk District pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). It is marked as a Section 408 requirement until the applicant can provide adequate documents that would support a proper evaluation of the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
An outgrant from USACE Norfolk District Real Estate Office, if needed.
An outgrant from USACE Norfolk District Real Estate Office, if needed.
An outgrant from USACE Norfolk District Real Estate Office, if needed.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Offshore, the installation/construction of up to 205 wind turbine generators (WTGs) and three Offshore Substations. The trenching and placement of the Inter-Array Cables, and Export Cables to the proposed landing locations. Temporary ports and laydown areas will also be required. The onshore components of the project will consist of the construction of up to two Cable Landing Locations, Horizontal Directional Drilling of the Cable Landing Location(s) to a Collector Station at Naval Air Station Oceana, Interconnection Cables above or below ground from the Collector Station to the existing Onshore Fentress Substation. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be performed to determine the impacts to Waters of the US.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Offshore, the installation/construction of up to 205 wind turbine generators (WTGs) and three Offshore Substations. The trenching and placement of the Inter-Array Cables, and Export Cables to the proposed landing locations. Temporary ports and laydown areas will also be required. The onshore components of the project will consist of the construction of up to two Cable Landing Locations, Horizontal Directional Drilling of the Cable Landing Location(s) to a Collector Station at Naval Air Station Oceana, Interconnection Cables above or below ground from the Collector Station to the existing Onshore Fentress Substation. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be performed to determine the impacts to Waters of the US.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Offshore, the installation/construction of up to 205 wind turbine generators (WTGs) and three Offshore Substations. The trenching and placement of the Inter-Array Cables, and Export Cables to the proposed landing locations. Temporary ports and laydown areas will also be required. The onshore components of the project will consist of the construction of up to two Cable Landing Locations, Horizontal Directional Drilling of the Cable Landing Location(s) to a Collector Station at Naval Air Station Oceana, Interconnection Cables above or below ground from the Collector Station to the existing Onshore Fentress Substation. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be performed to determine the impacts to Waters of the US.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Offshore, the installation/construction of up to 205 wind turbine generators (WTGs) and three Offshore Substations. The trenching and placement of the Inter-Array Cables, and Export Cables to the proposed landing locations. Temporary ports and laydown areas will also be required. The onshore components of the project will consist of the construction of up to two Cable Landing Locations, Horizontal Directional Drilling of the Cable Landing Location(s) to a Collector Station at Naval Air Station Oceana, Interconnection Cables above or below ground from the Collector Station to the existing Onshore Fentress Substation. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be performed to determine the impacts to Waters of the US.
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Kitty Hawk Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Kitty Hawk Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Kitty Hawk Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Kitty Hawk Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under USFWS’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Kitty Hawk Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under USFWS’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Kitty Hawk Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under USFWS’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Kitty Hawk Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under USFWS’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Kitty Hawk Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Kitty Hawk Wind Project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

.
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Kitty Hawk Wind Project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

.
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Kitty Hawk Wind Project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

.
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

&nbsp;
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

&nbsp;
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

&nbsp;
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

&nbsp;
This initial permitting timetable for Kitty Hawk Wind reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS OPR that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

&nbsp;
This schedule is for a ESA section 7 consultation should BOEM determine the project may affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
This schedule is for a ESA section 7 consultation should BOEM determine the project may affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
This schedule is for a ESA section 7 consultation should BOEM determine the project may affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
This schedule is for a ESA section 7 consultation should BOEM determine the project may affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.   

&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.   

&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.   

&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.   

&nbsp;
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopole supports embedded in the ocean floor. Water jet installed export cable(s). Monopole supported offshore substation(s). The trenching of ocean bottom within 3 nautical miles of the state of New Jersey for the placement of export cable(s). Horizontal directional drilling beneath the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a planned substation/grid connection. The export cable will either be above or below ground after landing, planned to follow road beds. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be required for the onshore portion of the export cable, especially where assumed 404 jurisdiction is suspected. Possible non tidal and/or tidal wetland impacts will occur if the cable is to remain above ground for any portion of its path to the proposed substation. Construction of a new substation is potentially necessary to tie the wind generated energy into the existing power grid. The substation may require impacts to non tidal and/or tidal wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopole supports embedded in the ocean floor. Water jet installed export cable(s). Monopole supported offshore substation(s). The trenching of ocean bottom within 3 nautical miles of the state of New Jersey for the placement of export cable(s). Horizontal directional drilling beneath the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a planned substation/grid connection. The export cable will either be above or below ground after landing, planned to follow road beds. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be required for the onshore portion of the export cable, especially where assumed 404 jurisdiction is suspected. Possible non tidal and/or tidal wetland impacts will occur if the cable is to remain above ground for any portion of its path to the proposed substation. Construction of a new substation is potentially necessary to tie the wind generated energy into the existing power grid. The substation may require impacts to non tidal and/or tidal wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopole supports embedded in the ocean floor. Water jet installed export cable(s). Monopole supported offshore substation(s). The trenching of ocean bottom within 3 nautical miles of the state of New Jersey for the placement of export cable(s). Horizontal directional drilling beneath the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a planned substation/grid connection. The export cable will either be above or below ground after landing, planned to follow road beds. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be required for the onshore portion of the export cable, especially where assumed 404 jurisdiction is suspected. Possible non tidal and/or tidal wetland impacts will occur if the cable is to remain above ground for any portion of its path to the proposed substation. Construction of a new substation is potentially necessary to tie the wind generated energy into the existing power grid. The substation may require impacts to non tidal and/or tidal wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopole supports embedded in the ocean floor. Water jet installed export cable(s). Monopole supported offshore substation(s). The trenching of ocean bottom within 3 nautical miles of the state of New Jersey for the placement of export cable(s). Horizontal directional drilling beneath the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a planned substation/grid connection. The export cable will either be above or below ground after landing, planned to follow road beds. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be required for the onshore portion of the export cable, especially where assumed 404 jurisdiction is suspected. Possible non tidal and/or tidal wetland impacts will occur if the cable is to remain above ground for any portion of its path to the proposed substation. Construction of a new substation is potentially necessary to tie the wind generated energy into the existing power grid. The substation may require impacts to non tidal and/or tidal wetlands.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Ocean Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Ocean Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Ocean Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Ocean Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
The Service will consult with BOEM on any project-related activities that may affect federally listed species or critical habitat.
The Service will consult with BOEM on any project-related activities that may affect federally listed species or critical habitat.
The Service will consult with BOEM on any project-related activities that may affect federally listed species or critical habitat.
The Service will consult with BOEM on any project-related activities that may affect federally listed species or critical habitat.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Ocean Wind Project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. 

Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Ocean Wind Project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. 

Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Ocean Wind Project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. 

Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental "take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental "take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental "take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental "take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental "take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408).&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Revolution Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Revolution Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Revolution Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Revolution Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore&nbsp;areas affected by the Revolution Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore&nbsp;areas affected by the Revolution Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore&nbsp;areas affected by the Revolution Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Species listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) exist throughout the area affected by the wind farm and associated transmission line.&nbsp; FWS will consult with BOEM (i.e., the lead agency) if they request ESA consultation or if, prior to that request, the federal action agency informs FWS in writing that they have determined its project may affect species listed, or critical habitats designated, under the ESA.
Species listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) exist throughout the area affected by the wind farm and associated transmission line.&nbsp; FWS will consult with BOEM (i.e., the lead agency) if they request ESA consultation or if, prior to that request, the federal action agency informs FWS in writing that they have determined its project may affect species listed, or critical habitats designated, under the ESA.
Species listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) exist throughout the area affected by the wind farm and associated transmission line.&nbsp; FWS will consult with BOEM (i.e., the lead agency) if they request ESA consultation or if, prior to that request, the federal action agency informs FWS in writing that they have determined its project may affect species listed, or critical habitats designated, under the ESA.
Species listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) exist throughout the area affected by the wind farm and associated transmission line.&nbsp; FWS will consult with BOEM (i.e., the lead agency) if they request ESA consultation or if, prior to that request, the federal action agency informs FWS in writing that they have determined its project may affect species listed, or critical habitats designated, under the ESA.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
UDOT is preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions to improve mobility through the Heber Valley and the operation of U.S.&nbsp;40 in Wasatch County, Utah.
Section 7 consultation for ESA.
Section 7 consultation for ESA.
Section 7 consultation for ESA.
Section 7 consultation for ESA.
Compliance under Section 106
Compliance under Section 106
Compliance under Section 106
Section 404 permit.
Section 404 permit.
Section 404 permit.
Section 404 permit.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Park City project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Park City project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Park City project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be in the form of Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and a Letter of Authorization (LOA).

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be in the form of Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and a Letter of Authorization (LOA).

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be in the form of Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and a Letter of Authorization (LOA).

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be in the form of Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and a Letter of Authorization (LOA).

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be in the form of Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and a Letter of Authorization (LOA).

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Park City project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Park City project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Park City project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Park City project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.

This initial permitting timetable for Vineyard Wind 2&nbsp;reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past singular offshore wind projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the number and timing of concurrent projects.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection including dredging. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection including dredging. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection including dredging. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection including dredging. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Penn Station Access Project would provide new Metro-North Railroad (MNR) service from New Haven, Connecticut (CT) to New York Penn Station (PSNY) in Manhattan by utilizing Amtrak’s Hell Gate Line (HGL) through the eastern Bronx and western Queens. The Proposed Project would make significant infrastructure improvements on the HGL, beginning in southeastern Westchester County, where New Haven Line (NHL) trains would divert onto the HGL, extending to Queens, joining the MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Mainline, and terminating at Penn Station. The Project includes constructing four (4) new, ADA-compliant MNR passenger stations in the eastern Bronx at Hunts Point, Parkchester-Van Nest, Morris Park, and Co-op City, as well as constructing a new, single-track railroad bridge over the Bronx River to supplement the existing bridge.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Penn Station Access Project would provide new Metro-North Railroad (MNR) service from New Haven, Connecticut (CT) to New York Penn Station (PSNY) in Manhattan by utilizing Amtrak’s Hell Gate Line (HGL) through the eastern Bronx and western Queens. The Proposed Project would make significant infrastructure improvements on the HGL, beginning in southeastern Westchester County, where New Haven Line (NHL) trains would divert onto the HGL, extending to Queens, joining the MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Mainline, and terminating at Penn Station. The Project includes constructing four (4) new, ADA-compliant MNR passenger stations in the eastern Bronx at Hunts Point, Parkchester-Van Nest, Morris Park, and Co-op City, as well as constructing a new, single-track railroad bridge over the Bronx River to supplement the existing bridge.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Penn Station Access Project would provide new Metro-North Railroad (MNR) service from New Haven, Connecticut (CT) to New York Penn Station (PSNY) in Manhattan by utilizing Amtrak’s Hell Gate Line (HGL) through the eastern Bronx and western Queens. The Proposed Project would make significant infrastructure improvements on the HGL, beginning in southeastern Westchester County, where New Haven Line (NHL) trains would divert onto the HGL, extending to Queens, joining the MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Mainline, and terminating at Penn Station. The Project includes constructing four (4) new, ADA-compliant MNR passenger stations in the eastern Bronx at Hunts Point, Parkchester-Van Nest, Morris Park, and Co-op City, as well as constructing a new, single-track railroad bridge over the Bronx River to supplement the existing bridge.
Previous NEPA and permits are completed. Based on final project design and landowner negotiations, the Project Sponsor requested minor modifications to the route post-EIS. This EA will be used to inform issuance of USDA Rural Development Loans.
Previous NEPA and permits are completed. Based on final project design and landowner negotiations, the Project Sponsor requested minor modifications to the route post-EIS. This EA will be used to inform issuance of USDA Rural Development Loans.
Previous NEPA and permits are completed. Based on final project design and landowner negotiations, the Project Sponsor requested minor modifications to the route post-EIS. This EA will be used to inform issuance of USDA Rural Development Loans.
Previous NEPA and permits are completed. Based on final project design and landowner negotiations, the Project Sponsor requested minor modifications to the route post-EIS. This EA will be used to inform issuance of USDA Rural Development Loans.
Previous NEPA and permits are completed. Based on final project design and landowner negotiations, the Project Sponsor requested minor modifications to the route post-EIS. This EA will be used to inform issuance of USDA Rural Development Loans.
Previous NEPA and permits are completed. Based on final project design and landowner negotiations, the Project Sponsor requested minor modifications to the route post-EIS. This EA will be used to inform issuance of USDA Rural Development Loans.
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
The North-South Corridor Study spans about 55 miles between U.S. 60 in Apache Junction and I-10 in Eloy, passing through the city of Coolidge, town of Florence and portions of unincorporated Pinal County along the way. The study also incorporates the extension of State Route 24 from Ironwood Drive to the North-South Corridor.&nbsp;
Regional General Permit #33 Obtained
Regional General Permit #33 Obtained
Regional General Permit #33 Obtained
Regional General Permit #33 Obtained
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The Blue Line Project is a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend approximately 8.2-miles from Republic Square in downtown Austin to the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS).
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
The proposed Orange Line project is a 20-mile light rail transit (LRT) corridor that would travel along Lamar Boulevard and Congress Avenue from the Tech Ridge Park &amp; Ride at Howard Lane south to Slaughter Lane.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopole supports embedded in the ocean floor. Water jet installed export cable(s). Monopole supported offshore substation(s). The trenching of ocean bottom within 3 nautical miles (territorial seas) of the state of New Jersey for the placement of export cable(s). Horizontal directional drilling beneath the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a planned substation/grid connection. The export cable will either be above or below ground after landing, planned to follow road beds. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be required for the onshore portion of the export cable, especially where assumed 404 jurisdiction is suspected. Possible non tidal and/or tidal wetland impacts will occur if the cable is to remain above ground for any portion of its path to the proposed substation. Construction of a new substation is potentially necessary to tie the wind generated energy into the existing power grid. The substation may require impacts to non tidal and/or tidal wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopole supports embedded in the ocean floor. Water jet installed export cable(s). Monopole supported offshore substation(s). The trenching of ocean bottom within 3 nautical miles (territorial seas) of the state of New Jersey for the placement of export cable(s). Horizontal directional drilling beneath the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a planned substation/grid connection. The export cable will either be above or below ground after landing, planned to follow road beds. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be required for the onshore portion of the export cable, especially where assumed 404 jurisdiction is suspected. Possible non tidal and/or tidal wetland impacts will occur if the cable is to remain above ground for any portion of its path to the proposed substation. Construction of a new substation is potentially necessary to tie the wind generated energy into the existing power grid. The substation may require impacts to non tidal and/or tidal wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopole supports embedded in the ocean floor. Water jet installed export cable(s). Monopole supported offshore substation(s). The trenching of ocean bottom within 3 nautical miles (territorial seas) of the state of New Jersey for the placement of export cable(s). Horizontal directional drilling beneath the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a planned substation/grid connection. The export cable will either be above or below ground after landing, planned to follow road beds. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be required for the onshore portion of the export cable, especially where assumed 404 jurisdiction is suspected. Possible non tidal and/or tidal wetland impacts will occur if the cable is to remain above ground for any portion of its path to the proposed substation. Construction of a new substation is potentially necessary to tie the wind generated energy into the existing power grid. The substation may require impacts to non tidal and/or tidal wetlands.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopole supports embedded in the ocean floor. Water jet installed export cable(s). Monopole supported offshore substation(s). The trenching of ocean bottom within 3 nautical miles (territorial seas) of the state of New Jersey for the placement of export cable(s). Horizontal directional drilling beneath the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a planned substation/grid connection. The export cable will either be above or below ground after landing, planned to follow road beds. An aquatic resource delineation and jurisdictional determination will be required for the onshore portion of the export cable, especially where assumed 404 jurisdiction is suspected. Possible non tidal and/or tidal wetland impacts will occur if the cable is to remain above ground for any portion of its path to the proposed substation. Construction of a new substation is potentially necessary to tie the wind generated energy into the existing power grid. The substation may require impacts to non tidal and/or tidal wetlands.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Atlantic Shores project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Atlantic Shores project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Atlantic Shores project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.&nbsp;
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be an incidental harassment authorization (IHA). 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Atlantic Shores project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Atlantic Shores project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Atlantic Shores project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species occur in the action area for the Atlantic Shores project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 

This initial permitting timetable for Atlantic Shores reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
The consultation will evaluate the effects of the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Project on federally listed species.
The consultation will evaluate the effects of the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Project on federally listed species.
The consultation will evaluate the effects of the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Project on federally listed species.
The consultation will evaluate the effects of the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Project on federally listed species.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations or gravity base structures (GBS) foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations or gravity base structures (GBS) foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations or gravity base structures (GBS) foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. &nbsp;Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations or gravity base structures (GBS) foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization.
Permit 1 for Phase 1
Permit 1 for Phase 1
Permit 1 for Phase 1
Permit 1 for Phase 1
Permit 1 for Phase 1
Permit 1 for Phase 1
Permit 1 for Phase 1
Permit 1 for Phase 1
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
The proposed Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement Facility Project proposes to construct a new Bus Terminal and associated infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan in the City of New York, New York. &nbsp;The proposed project includes the bus terminal replacement facility and four private, high-rise buildings (three commercial and one mixed-use retail/residential).
Consultation to address effects to the recently listed Black Rail.

The Service will review the DEIS when available to ensure the project description has not changed from what we addressed in the BO. If the project description includes activities that were not covered in the BO, we may need to reconsult on them.
Consultation to address effects to the recently listed Black Rail.

The Service will review the DEIS when available to ensure the project description has not changed from what we addressed in the BO. If the project description includes activities that were not covered in the BO, we may need to reconsult on them.
Consultation to address effects to the recently listed Black Rail.

The Service will review the DEIS when available to ensure the project description has not changed from what we addressed in the BO. If the project description includes activities that were not covered in the BO, we may need to reconsult on them.
Consultation to address effects to the recently listed Black Rail.

The Service will review the DEIS when available to ensure the project description has not changed from what we addressed in the BO. If the project description includes activities that were not covered in the BO, we may need to reconsult on them.
EPA is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact office and will coordinate with EPA Region 2 for this OCS air permit.

&nbsp;

Final permit issued (1/18/2022) and is located at&nbsp;https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/south-fork-wind-llcs-south-fork-windfarm-outer-continental-shelf-air-permit.

&nbsp;
EPA is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact office and will coordinate with EPA Region 2 for this OCS air permit.

&nbsp;

Final permit issued (1/18/2022) and is located at&nbsp;https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/south-fork-wind-llcs-south-fork-windfarm-outer-continental-shelf-air-permit.

&nbsp;
EPA is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact office and will coordinate with EPA Region 2 for this OCS air permit.

&nbsp;

Final permit issued (1/18/2022) and is located at&nbsp;https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/south-fork-wind-llcs-south-fork-windfarm-outer-continental-shelf-air-permit.

&nbsp;
EPA is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact office and will coordinate with EPA Region 2 for this OCS air permit.

&nbsp;

Final permit issued (1/18/2022) and is located at&nbsp;https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/south-fork-wind-llcs-south-fork-windfarm-outer-continental-shelf-air-permit.

&nbsp;
EPA is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact office and will coordinate with EPA Region 2 for this OCS air permit.

&nbsp;

Final permit issued (1/18/2022) and is located at&nbsp;https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/south-fork-wind-llcs-south-fork-windfarm-outer-continental-shelf-air-permit.

&nbsp;
EPA is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact office and will coordinate with EPA Region 2 for this OCS air permit.

&nbsp;

Final permit issued (1/18/2022) and is located at&nbsp;https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/south-fork-wind-llcs-south-fork-windfarm-outer-continental-shelf-air-permit.

&nbsp;
EPA is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact office and will coordinate with EPA Region 2 for this OCS air permit.

&nbsp;

Final permit issued (1/18/2022) and is located at&nbsp;https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/south-fork-wind-llcs-south-fork-windfarm-outer-continental-shelf-air-permit.

&nbsp;
EPA is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact office and will coordinate with EPA Region 2 for this OCS air permit.

&nbsp;

Final permit issued (1/18/2022) and is located at&nbsp;https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/south-fork-wind-llcs-south-fork-windfarm-outer-continental-shelf-air-permit.

&nbsp;
The Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Project (Project) would include the following improvements: station platform and tracks, pedestrian access, parking, circulation and streetscape enhancements. A pedestrian access and six parking lot and circulation design options are under consideration as part of the build alternative. These improvements will expand capacity, improve operations and efficiency, connectivity, and passenger experience at the Riverside Downtown Station. &nbsp;
The Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Project (Project) would include the following improvements: station platform and tracks, pedestrian access, parking, circulation and streetscape enhancements. A pedestrian access and six parking lot and circulation design options are under consideration as part of the build alternative. These improvements will expand capacity, improve operations and efficiency, connectivity, and passenger experience at the Riverside Downtown Station. &nbsp;
The Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Project (Project) would include the following improvements: station platform and tracks, pedestrian access, parking, circulation and streetscape enhancements. A pedestrian access and six parking lot and circulation design options are under consideration as part of the build alternative. These improvements will expand capacity, improve operations and efficiency, connectivity, and passenger experience at the Riverside Downtown Station. &nbsp;
The Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Project (Project) would include the following improvements: station platform and tracks, pedestrian access, parking, circulation and streetscape enhancements. A pedestrian access and six parking lot and circulation design options are under consideration as part of the build alternative. These improvements will expand capacity, improve operations and efficiency, connectivity, and passenger experience at the Riverside Downtown Station. &nbsp;
The Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Project (Project) would include the following improvements: station platform and tracks, pedestrian access, parking, circulation and streetscape enhancements. A pedestrian access and six parking lot and circulation design options are under consideration as part of the build alternative. These improvements will expand capacity, improve operations and efficiency, connectivity, and passenger experience at the Riverside Downtown Station. &nbsp;
The Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Project (Project) would include the following improvements: station platform and tracks, pedestrian access, parking, circulation and streetscape enhancements. A pedestrian access and six parking lot and circulation design options are under consideration as part of the build alternative. These improvements will expand capacity, improve operatations and efficiency, connectivity, and passenger experience at the Riverside Downtown Station. &nbsp;
The Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Project (Project) would include the following improvements: station platform and tracks, pedestrian access, parking, circulation and streetscape enhancements. A pedestrian access and six parking lot and circulation design options are under consideration as part of the build alternative. These improvements will expand capacity, improve operatations and efficiency, connectivity, and passenger experience at the Riverside Downtown Station. &nbsp;
The Riverside Downtown Station Improvements Project (Project) would include the following improvements: station platform and tracks, pedestrian access, parking, circulation and streetscape enhancements. A pedestrian access and six parking lot and circulation design options are under consideration as part of the build alternative. These improvements will expand capacity, improve operatations and efficiency, connectivity, and passenger experience at the Riverside Downtown Station. &nbsp;
A Section 408 permission may be required from USACE’s Navigation Section pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act&nbsp;of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) for any proposed alterations that have the potential to alter, occupy or use any USACE federally authorized Civil Works projects.&nbsp;
A Section 408 permission may be required from USACE’s Navigation Section pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act&nbsp;of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) for any proposed alterations that have the potential to alter, occupy or use any USACE federally authorized Civil Works projects.&nbsp;
A Section 408 permission may be required from USACE’s Navigation Section pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act&nbsp;of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) for any proposed alterations that have the potential to alter, occupy or use any USACE federally authorized Civil Works projects.&nbsp;
A Section 408 permission may be required from USACE’s Navigation Section pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act&nbsp;of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) for any proposed alterations that have the potential to alter, occupy or use any USACE federally authorized Civil Works projects.&nbsp;
A Section 408 permission may be required from USACE’s Navigation Section pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act&nbsp;of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) for any proposed alterations that have the potential to alter, occupy or use any USACE federally authorized Civil Works projects.&nbsp;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 

This initial permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 

This initial permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 

This initial permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction.&nbsp; ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat occur in the action area for the Empire Wind project.&nbsp; The proposed action may affect these resources, therefore Section 7 consultation is required. 

This initial permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on any action or proposed action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).&nbsp; EFH exists throughout all of the coastal and offshore areas affected by the Empire Wind project and associated transmission system.&nbsp; The proposed action may adversely affect these resources, therefore EFH consultation is required.&nbsp; Based on anticipated adverse impacts to EFH, an expanded consultation will be required.&nbsp; The final consultation completion date is contingent upon NOAA Fisheries receiving sufficient information to initiate EFH consultation. Also note that NMFS has authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this project.&nbsp; NMFS expects the coordination and consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to be concurrent with the EFH consultation.

This initial permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization. 

This permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization. 

This permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization. 

This permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization. 

This permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits "take" of marine mammals with certain exceptions. An incidental take authorization, which may be issued provided certain findings are made, allows for the "take" of marine mammals provided the authorized entity abides by mitigation and monitoring measures and take limits established in the authorization. The project proponent has communicated to NMFS that the activity may result in the incidental “take" of marine mammals and has expressed plans to submit a request for an MMPA incidental take authorization. Based on initial feedback from the applicant, we anticipate the incidental take authorization under the MMPA for this project will be a letter of authorization. 

This permitting timetable for the Sunrise Wind Project reflects the best estimates of the agencies based on past&nbsp;singular offshore wind&nbsp;projects, but is likely to vary, depending on the&nbsp;receipt of sufficient required information from the project sponsor, and the&nbsp;number and timing of concurrent projects.
The ESA section 7 consultation&nbsp;will evaluate the effects of the proposed projects on Federally listed species and designated Critical Habitat.
The ESA section 7 consultation&nbsp;will evaluate the effects of the proposed projects on Federally listed species and designated Critical Habitat.
The ESA section 7 consultation&nbsp;will evaluate the effects of the proposed projects on Federally listed species and designated Critical Habitat.
The ESA section 7 consultation&nbsp;will evaluate the effects of the proposed projects on Federally listed species and designated Critical Habitat.
EPA Region 1 will issue a NPDES permit for the cooling water discharge at the DC Offshore substation.
EPA Region 1 will issue a NPDES permit for the cooling water discharge at the DC Offshore substation.
EPA Region 1 will issue a NPDES permit for the cooling water discharge at the DC Offshore substation.
EPA Region 1 is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact for this project and will coordinate with EPA Region 2.&nbsp;
EPA Region 1 is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact for this project and will coordinate with EPA Region 2.&nbsp;
EPA Region 1 is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact for this project and will coordinate with EPA Region 2.&nbsp;
EPA Region 1 is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact for this project and will coordinate with EPA Region 2.&nbsp;
EPA Region 1 is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact for this project and will coordinate with EPA Region 2.&nbsp;
EPA Region 1 is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact for this project and will coordinate with EPA Region 2.&nbsp;
EPA Region 1 is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact for this project and will coordinate with EPA Region 2.&nbsp;
EPA Region 1 is responsible for issuing an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permit under the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 1 will be the primary contact for this project and will coordinate with EPA Region 2.&nbsp;
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations or gravity base structures (GBS) foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables&nbsp;between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore&nbsp;substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export
cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations or gravity base structures (GBS) foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables&nbsp;between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore&nbsp;substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export
cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations or gravity base structures (GBS) foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables&nbsp;between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore&nbsp;substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export
cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.
Department of Army authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Activities that require authorization include: Installation of turbine structures on monopile foundations or gravity base structures (GBS) foundations embedded in the ocean floor. Installation of export cable(s) and associated cable protection. Installation of inter-array cables&nbsp;between turbine structures and offshore substations. Monopile or jacket pile supported offshore&nbsp;substation(s). Horizontal directional drilling or open cut trenching along the shoreline for the export
cable to begin its path to a substation/grid connection.
Right-of-Way (ROW) and Special Use Permits (SUPs) for access through Fire Island National Seashore Waters
Right-of-Way (ROW) and Special Use Permits (SUPs) for access through Fire Island National Seashore Waters
Right-of-Way (ROW) and Special Use Permits (SUPs) for access through Fire Island National Seashore Waters
Right-of-Way (ROW) and Special Use Permits (SUPs) for access through Fire Island National Seashore Waters
Right-of-Way (ROW) and Special Use Permits (SUPs) for access through Fire Island National Seashore Waters
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). Additional project details are required to make a final determination.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). Additional project details are required to make a final determination.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). Additional project details are required to make a final determination.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). Additional project details are required to make a final determination.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission may be required pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). Additional project details are required to make a final determination.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission is&nbsp;required from the Philadelphia District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408) and will evaluate&nbsp;the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission is&nbsp;required from the Philadelphia District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408) and will evaluate&nbsp;the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission is&nbsp;required from the Philadelphia District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408) and will evaluate&nbsp;the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission is&nbsp;required from the Philadelphia District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408) and will evaluate&nbsp;the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
A Section 408 Permission is&nbsp;required from the Philadelphia District&nbsp;pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408) and will evaluate&nbsp;the proposed activity relative to the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects and assets.&nbsp;
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
The proposed Buffalo-Amherst-Tonawanda Corridor Transit Expansion Project is a proposed approximately seven-mile expansion of high-quality transit service to Buffalo, New York to Tonawanda and Amherst, New York.&nbsp; The alternatives being considered include a light rail transit extension, a bus rapid transit system, and the no-build alternative.&nbsp; Both build alternatives would follow essentially the same alignment and would be primarily at-grade. Ten stations, two with park &amp; ride facilities and an overnight storage and light maintenance facility are proposed for both build alternatives.
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
Right-of-way applications for renewable energy development involve an application evaluation process (43 CFR §2804.25(e)(2)(iii)).&nbsp; Public outreach and coordination with local, state, and tribal governments, and federal agencies, is also required for application evaluation.&nbsp; Based on the application evaluation, the BLM will determine if it is appropriate to continue to process or to deny the right-of-way application. The identified scheduled NEPA milestones are subject to a favorable application evaluation determination.



If the BLM determines that it is appropriate to continue processing the right-of-way application, it will be processed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all other relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

* Note: EIS would include consideration of a Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)
The authorities under which the Service will consider the Kulning Wind Energy Project include, but may not be limited to, the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The authorities under which the Service will consider the Kulning Wind Energy Project include, but may not be limited to, the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The authorities under which the Service will consider the Kulning Wind Energy Project include, but may not be limited to, the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The authorities under which the Service will consider the Kulning Wind Energy Project include, but may not be limited to, the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The ESA consultation will evaluate the effects of the proposed activities on federally listed species and designated critical habitat. FWS will use BLM's biological assessment to complete consultation on this project. The proposed schedule anticipates evaluation of the preferred or selected alternative/aligment of the project. The currrent schedule includes a 135-day formal consultation period and additional time for BLM to review the draft BO should they do so. Milestone target dates will be confirmed when we determine we have a complete consultation package and can begin the consultation.
The ESA consultation will evaluate the effects of the proposed activities on federally listed species and designated critical habitat. FWS will use BLM's biological assessment to complete consultation on this project. The proposed schedule anticipates evaluation of the preferred or selected alternative/aligment of the project. The currrent schedule includes a 135-day formal consultation period and additional time for BLM to review the draft BO should they do so. Milestone target dates will be confirmed when we determine we have a complete consultation package and can begin the consultation.
The ESA consultation will evaluate the effects of the proposed activities on federally listed species and designated critical habitat. FWS will use BLM's biological assessment to complete consultation on this project. The proposed schedule anticipates evaluation of the preferred or selected alternative/aligment of the project. The currrent schedule includes a 135-day formal consultation period and additional time for BLM to review the draft BO should they do so. Milestone target dates will be confirmed when we determine we have a complete consultation package and can begin the consultation.
The ESA consultation will evaluate the effects of the proposed activities on federally listed species and designated critical habitat. FWS will use BLM's biological assessment to complete consultation on this project. The proposed schedule anticipates evaluation of the preferred or selected alternative/aligment of the project. The currrent schedule includes a 135-day formal consultation period and additional time for BLM to review the draft BO should they do so. Milestone target dates will be confirmed when we determine we have a complete consultation package and can begin the consultation.
The Corps is responsible for permit processing under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A permit is required for project related discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (waters). The type of permit required will depend on the level of impact/loss to waters in the project area. The Corps permit decision will be made NLT 120 days after receiving a complete Section 404 application and conclusion of Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act compliance.
The Corps is responsible for permit processing under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A permit is required for project related discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (waters). The type of permit required will depend on the level of impact/loss to waters in the project area. The Corps permit decision will be made NLT 120 days after receiving a complete Section 404 application and conclusion of Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act compliance.
The Corps is responsible for permit processing under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A permit is required for project related discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (waters). The type of permit required will depend on the level of impact/loss to waters in the project area. The Corps permit decision will be made NLT 120 days after receiving a complete Section 404 application and conclusion of Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act compliance.
The Corps is responsible for permit processing under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A permit is required for project related discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (waters). The type of permit required will depend on the level of impact/loss to waters in the project area. The Corps permit decision will be made NLT 120 days after receiving a complete Section 404 application and conclusion of Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act compliance.
The Corps is responsible for permit processing under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A permit is required for project related discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (waters). The type of permit required will depend on the level of impact/loss to waters in the project area. The Corps permit decision will be made NLT 120 days after receiving a complete Section 404 application and conclusion of Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act compliance.
This is a Supplemental EA.
This is a Supplemental EA.
This is a Supplemental EA.
This is a Supplemental EA.
This is a Supplemental EA.
FRA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Board, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with
NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Section
4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
FRA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Board, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with
NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Section
4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
FRA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Board, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with
NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Section
4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
FRA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Board, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with
NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Section
4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
FRA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Board, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, is preparing an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with
NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Section
4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
The Wilmington Rail Realignment Project (Project) is located primarily within the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, but also extends into Brunswick County. The existing CSXT rail line, commonly referred to as the “Beltline,” is the only active track through the City. The Project proposes to reroute all existing freight traffic (both local and through traffic) from the Beltline to a new rail connection to be constructed between Davis Yard/Navassa and the Port of Wilmington. The Project will improve safety, regional transportation mobility, and freight rail operations, while also improving the resiliency, reliability, and operational fluidity of the sole freight rail route connecting southeastern North Carolina with the Port of Wilmington. Currently the Project is unfunded.
The Wilmington Rail Realignment Project (Project) is located primarily within the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, but also extends into Brunswick County. The existing CSXT rail line, commonly referred to as the “Beltline,” is the only active track through the City. The Project proposes to reroute all existing freight traffic (both local and through traffic) from the Beltline to a new rail connection to be constructed between Davis Yard/Navassa and the Port of Wilmington. The Project will improve safety, regional transportation mobility, and freight rail operations, while also improving the resiliency, reliability, and operational fluidity of the sole freight rail route connecting southeastern North Carolina with the Port of Wilmington. Currently the Project is unfunded.
The Wilmington Rail Realignment Project (Project) is located primarily within the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, but also extends into Brunswick County. The existing CSXT rail line, commonly referred to as the “Beltline,” is the only active track through the City. The Project proposes to reroute all existing freight traffic (both local and through traffic) from the Beltline to a new rail connection to be constructed between Davis Yard/Navassa and the Port of Wilmington. The Project will improve safety, regional transportation mobility, and freight rail operations, while also improving the resiliency, reliability, and operational fluidity of the sole freight rail route connecting southeastern North Carolina with the Port of Wilmington. Currently the Project is unfunded.
The Wilmington Rail Realignment Project (Project) is located primarily within the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, but also extends into Brunswick County. The existing CSXT rail line, commonly referred to as the “Beltline,” is the only active track through the City. The Project proposes to reroute all existing freight traffic (both local and through traffic) from the Beltline to a new rail connection to be constructed between Davis Yard/Navassa and the Port of Wilmington. The Project will improve safety, regional transportation mobility, and freight rail operations, while also improving the resiliency, reliability, and operational fluidity of the sole freight rail route connecting southeastern North Carolina with the Port of Wilmington. Currently the Project is unfunded.
The Wilmington Rail Realignment Project (Project) is located primarily within the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, but also extends into Brunswick County. The existing CSXT rail line, commonly referred to as the “Beltline,” is the only active track through the City. The Project proposes to reroute all existing freight traffic (both local and through traffic) from the Beltline to a new rail connection to be constructed between Davis Yard/Navassa and the Port of Wilmington. The Project will improve safety, regional transportation mobility, and freight rail operations, while also improving the resiliency, reliability, and operational fluidity of the sole freight rail route connecting southeastern North Carolina with the Port of Wilmington. Currently the Project is unfunded.
NOAA concurred that there will be no impact to Essential Fish Habitat. Therefore, no permit is required.
NOAA concurred that there will be no impact to Essential Fish Habitat. Therefore, no permit is required.
NOAA concurred that there will be no impact to Essential Fish Habitat. Therefore, no permit is required.
This is a Pima County certification acceptance project that will be designed and with construction administration by the County. Scope of work involves expansion of the existing Sunset road at I-10 to an urban 4 lane roadway with pedestrian facilities, drainage improvements, and bridge crossings.&nbsp;
This is a Pima County certification acceptance project that will be designed and with construction administration by the County. Scope of work involves expansion of the existing Sunset road at I-10 to an urban 4 lane roadway with pedestrian facilities, drainage improvements, and bridge crossings.&nbsp;
This is a Pima County certification acceptance project that will be designed and with construction administration by the County. Scope of work involves expansion of the existing Sunset road at I-10 to an urban 4 lane roadway with pedestrian facilities, drainage improvements, and bridge crossings.&nbsp;
This is a Pima County certification acceptance project that will be designed and with construction administration by the County. Scope of work involves expansion of the existing Sunset road at I-10 to an urban 4 lane roadway with pedestrian facilities, drainage improvements, and bridge crossings.&nbsp;
This is a Pima County certification acceptance project that will be designed and with construction administration by the County. Scope of work involves expansion of the existing Sunset road at I-10 to an urban 4 lane roadway with pedestrian facilities, drainage improvements, and bridge crossings.&nbsp;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), project sponsor and joint lead agency under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in coordination with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), lead agency under NEPA, as assigned by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project, a grade separation of two principal freight railroad lines at the Stockton Diamond in Stockton, California.

On August 19, 2020, SJRRC officially launched the environmental review process for the proposed Project with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At the time of the NOP issuance, the environmental document was presented to stakeholders and the public as a joint California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/NEPA document. SJRRC, as the CEQA lead agency in coordination with the Authority as the NEPA lead agency, was to prepare an EIR/EA. Due to funding deadline considerations, the CEQA/NEPA document was split, and SJRRC prepared an EIR for the proposed Project, which was adopted by the SJRRC Board on June 4, 2021. SJRRC, with guidance and independent evaluation by the Authority, has now prepared this EA for the proposed Project in conformance with NEPA.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), project sponsor and joint lead agency under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in coordination with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), lead agency under NEPA, as assigned by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project, a grade separation of two principal freight railroad lines at the Stockton Diamond in Stockton, California.

On August 19, 2020, SJRRC officially launched the environmental review process for the proposed Project with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At the time of the NOP issuance, the environmental document was presented to stakeholders and the public as a joint California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/NEPA document. SJRRC, as the CEQA lead agency in coordination with the Authority as the NEPA lead agency, was to prepare an EIR/EA. Due to funding deadline considerations, the CEQA/NEPA document was split, and SJRRC prepared an EIR for the proposed Project, which was adopted by the SJRRC Board on June 4, 2021. SJRRC, with guidance and independent evaluation by the Authority, has now prepared this EA for the proposed Project in conformance with NEPA.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), project sponsor and joint lead agency under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in coordination with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), lead agency under NEPA, as assigned by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project, a grade separation of two principal freight railroad lines at the Stockton Diamond in Stockton, California.

On August 19, 2020, SJRRC officially launched the environmental review process for the proposed Project with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At the time of the NOP issuance, the environmental document was presented to stakeholders and the public as a joint California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/NEPA document. SJRRC, as the CEQA lead agency in coordination with the Authority as the NEPA lead agency, was to prepare an EIR/EA. Due to funding deadline considerations, the CEQA/NEPA document was split, and SJRRC prepared an EIR for the proposed Project, which was adopted by the SJRRC Board on June 4, 2021. SJRRC, with guidance and independent evaluation by the Authority, has now prepared this EA for the proposed Project in conformance with NEPA.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), project sponsor and joint lead agency under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in coordination with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), lead agency under NEPA, as assigned by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project, a grade separation of two principal freight railroad lines at the Stockton Diamond in Stockton, California.

On August 19, 2020, SJRRC officially launched the environmental review process for the proposed Project with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At the time of the NOP issuance, the environmental document was presented to stakeholders and the public as a joint California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/NEPA document. SJRRC, as the CEQA lead agency in coordination with the Authority as the NEPA lead agency, was to prepare an EIR/EA. Due to funding deadline considerations, the CEQA/NEPA document was split, and SJRRC prepared an EIR for the proposed Project, which was adopted by the SJRRC Board on June 4, 2021. SJRRC, with guidance and independent evaluation by the Authority, has now prepared this EA for the proposed Project in conformance with NEPA.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), project sponsor and joint lead agency under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in coordination with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), lead agency under NEPA, as assigned by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project, a grade separation of two principal freight railroad lines at the Stockton Diamond in Stockton, California.

On August 19, 2020, SJRRC officially launched the environmental review process for the proposed Project with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At the time of the NOP issuance, the environmental document was presented to stakeholders and the public as a joint California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/NEPA document. SJRRC, as the CEQA lead agency in coordination with the Authority as the NEPA lead agency, was to prepare an EIR/EA. Due to funding deadline considerations, the CEQA/NEPA document was split, and SJRRC prepared an EIR for the proposed Project, which was adopted by the SJRRC Board on June 4, 2021. SJRRC, with guidance and independent evaluation by the Authority, has now prepared this EA for the proposed Project in conformance with NEPA.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an environmental assessment that will evaluate the I-15 Pleasant Grove Boulevard interchange and the surrounding area in Pleasant Grove and Lindon in Utah County. This study is being conducted to address growth and current traffic conditions in Utah County and to evaluate new traffic configurations to increase driver safety.&nbsp;
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an environmental assessment that will evaluate the I-15 Pleasant Grove Boulevard interchange and the surrounding area in Pleasant Grove and Lindon in Utah County. This study is being conducted to address growth and current traffic conditions in Utah County and to evaluate new traffic configurations to increase driver safety.&nbsp;
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an environmental assessment that will evaluate the I-15 Pleasant Grove Boulevard interchange and the surrounding area in Pleasant Grove and Lindon in Utah County. This study is being conducted to address growth and current traffic conditions in Utah County and to evaluate new traffic configurations to increase driver safety.&nbsp;
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an environmental assessment that will evaluate the I-15 Pleasant Grove Boulevard interchange and the surrounding area in Pleasant Grove and Lindon in Utah County. This study is being conducted to address growth and current traffic conditions in Utah County and to evaluate new traffic configurations to increase driver safety.&nbsp;
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an environmental assessment that will evaluate the I-15 Pleasant Grove Boulevard interchange and the surrounding area in Pleasant Grove and Lindon in Utah County. This study is being conducted to address growth and current traffic conditions in Utah County and to evaluate new traffic configurations to increase driver safety.&nbsp;
The Inglewood Transit Connector Project is a proposed automated transit system to improve overall mobility and levels of service, address projected future congestion, provide access to transit to its priority populations, and advance its sustainability goals. The proposed project would include an electrically propelled driverless train transit system operating on an approximately 1.6-mile long, elevated fixed-guideway primarily located within the public right-of-way along Market Street, Manchester Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. Three stations are proposed along the alignment on privately-owned land that would be acquired as part of the proposed Project. The elevated guideway consists of two lanes to support multiple trains traveling in one direction on a single lane before switching lanes at the end of line station for the return trip.
The Inglewood Transit Connector Project is a proposed automated transit system to improve overall mobility and levels of service, address projected future congestion, provide access to transit to its priority populations, and advance its sustainability goals. The proposed project would include an electrically propelled driverless train transit system operating on an approximately 1.6-mile long, elevated fixed-guideway primarily located within the public right-of-way along Market Street, Manchester Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. Three stations are proposed along the alignment on privately-owned land that would be acquired as part of the proposed Project. The elevated guideway consists of two lanes to support multiple trains traveling in one direction on a single lane before switching lanes at the end of line station for the return trip.
The Inglewood Transit Connector Project is a proposed automated transit system to improve overall mobility and levels of service, address projected future congestion, provide access to transit to its priority populations, and advance its sustainability goals. The proposed project would include an electrically propelled driverless train transit system operating on an approximately 1.6-mile long, elevated fixed-guideway primarily located within the public right-of-way along Market Street, Manchester Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. Three stations are proposed along the alignment on privately-owned land that would be acquired as part of the proposed Project. The elevated guideway consists of two lanes to support multiple trains traveling in one direction on a single lane before switching lanes at the end of line station for the return trip.
The Inglewood Transit Connector Project is a proposed automated transit system to improve overall mobility and levels of service, address projected future congestion, provide access to transit to its priority populations, and advance its sustainability goals. The proposed project would include an electrically propelled driverless train transit system operating on an approximately 1.6-mile long, elevated fixed-guideway primarily located within the public right-of-way along Market Street, Manchester Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. Three stations are proposed along the alignment on privately-owned land that would be acquired as part of the proposed Project. The elevated guideway consists of two lanes to support multiple trains traveling in one direction on a single lane before switching lanes at the end of line station for the return trip.
The Inglewood Transit Connector Project is a proposed automated transit system to improve overall mobility and levels of service, address projected future congestion, provide access to transit to its priority populations, and advance its sustainability goals. The proposed project would include an electrically propelled driverless train transit system operating on an approximately 1.6-mile long, elevated fixed-guideway primarily located within the public right-of-way along Market Street, Manchester Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. Three stations are proposed along the alignment on privately-owned land that would be acquired as part of the proposed Project. The elevated guideway consists of two lanes to support multiple trains traveling in one direction on a single lane before switching lanes at the end of line station for the return trip.
The Inglewood Transit Connector Project is a proposed automated transit system to improve overall mobility and levels of service, address projected future congestion, provide access to transit to its priority populations, and advance its sustainability goals. The proposed project would include an electrically propelled driverless train transit system operating on an approximately 1.6-mile long, elevated fixed-guideway primarily located within the public right-of-way along Market Street, Manchester Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. Three stations are proposed along the alignment on privately-owned land that would be acquired as part of the proposed Project. The elevated guideway consists of two lanes to support multiple trains traveling in one direction on a single lane before switching lanes at the end of line station for the return trip.
The Inglewood Transit Connector Project is a proposed automated transit system to improve overall mobility and levels of service, address projected future congestion, provide access to transit to its priority populations, and advance its sustainability goals. The proposed project would include an electrically propelled driverless train transit system operating on an approximately 1.6-mile long, elevated fixed-guideway primarily located within the public right-of-way along Market Street, Manchester Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. Three stations are proposed along the alignment on privately-owned land that would be acquired as part of the proposed Project. The elevated guideway consists of two lanes to support multiple trains traveling in one direction on a single lane before switching lanes at the end of line station for the return trip.
The Inglewood Transit Connector Project is a proposed automated transit system to improve overall mobility and levels of service, address projected future congestion, provide access to transit to its priority populations, and advance its sustainability goals. The proposed project would include an electrically propelled driverless train transit system operating on an approximately 1.6-mile long, elevated fixed-guideway primarily located within the public right-of-way along Market Street, Manchester Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. Three stations are proposed along the alignment on privately-owned land that would be acquired as part of the proposed Project. The elevated guideway consists of two lanes to support multiple trains traveling in one direction on a single lane before switching lanes at the end of line station for the return trip.
The Detroit Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Coolidge Terminal Replacement facility, a new operations and maintenance replacement bus facility in Detroit, Michigan. The project includes demolition of six existing structures located on the existing Coolidge bus terminal site, and construction of three new bus maintenance, storage, and operations center buildings and associated infrastructure at the existing facility. The new facility would provide expanded bus maintenance, storage and operations services along with associated improvements and amenities.
The Detroit Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Coolidge Terminal Replacement facility, a new operations and maintenance replacement bus facility in Detroit, Michigan. The project includes demolition of six existing structures located on the existing Coolidge bus terminal site, and construction of three new bus maintenance, storage, and operations center buildings and associated infrastructure at the existing facility. The new facility would provide expanded bus maintenance, storage and operations services along with associated improvements and amenities.
The Detroit Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Coolidge Terminal Replacement facility, a new operations and maintenance replacement bus facility in Detroit, Michigan. The project includes demolition of six existing structures located on the existing Coolidge bus terminal site, and construction of three new bus maintenance, storage, and operations center buildings and associated infrastructure at the existing facility. The new facility would provide expanded bus maintenance, storage and operations services along with associated improvements and amenities.
The Detroit Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Coolidge Terminal Replacement facility, a new operations and maintenance replacement bus facility in Detroit, Michigan. The project includes demolition of six existing structures located on the existing Coolidge bus terminal site, and construction of three new bus maintenance, storage, and operations center buildings and associated infrastructure at the existing facility. The new facility would provide expanded bus maintenance, storage and operations services along with associated improvements and amenities.
The Detroit Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Coolidge Terminal Replacement facility, a new operations and maintenance replacement bus facility in Detroit, Michigan. The project includes demolition of six existing structures located on the existing Coolidge bus terminal site, and construction of three new bus maintenance, storage, and operations center buildings and associated infrastructure at the existing facility. The new facility would provide expanded bus maintenance, storage and operations services along with associated improvements and amenities.
The Detroit Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Coolidge Terminal Replacement facility, a new operations and maintenance replacement bus facility in Detroit, Michigan. The project includes demolition of six existing structures located on the existing Coolidge bus terminal site, and construction of three new bus maintenance, storage, and operations center buildings and associated infrastructure at the existing facility. The new facility would provide expanded bus maintenance, storage and operations services along with associated improvements and amenities.
The Detroit Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Coolidge Terminal Replacement facility, a new operations and maintenance replacement bus facility in Detroit, Michigan. The project includes demolition of six existing structures located on the existing Coolidge bus terminal site, and construction of three new bus maintenance, storage, and operations center buildings and associated infrastructure at the existing facility. The new facility would provide expanded bus maintenance, storage and operations services along with associated improvements and amenities.
The Detroit Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Coolidge Terminal Replacement facility, a new operations and maintenance replacement bus facility in Detroit, Michigan. The project includes demolition of six existing structures located on the existing Coolidge bus terminal site, and construction of three new bus maintenance, storage, and operations center buildings and associated infrastructure at the existing facility. The new facility would provide expanded bus maintenance, storage and operations services along with associated improvements and amenities.
Section 106 completed December 2021 as part of local sponsor efforts and ADOT consultation for the EA.&nbsp;
Section 106 completed December 2021 as part of local sponsor efforts and ADOT consultation for the EA.&nbsp;
Section 106 completed December 2021 as part of local sponsor efforts and ADOT consultation for the EA.&nbsp;
Project will have RGP with pre-construction notification.&nbsp;
Project will have RGP with pre-construction notification.&nbsp;
Project will have RGP with pre-construction notification.&nbsp;
Project will have RGP with pre-construction notification.&nbsp;
Section 408 to be submitted by Pima County project sponsor.&nbsp;
Section 408 to be submitted by Pima County project sponsor.&nbsp;
Section 408 to be submitted by Pima County project sponsor.&nbsp;
Section 408 to be submitted by Pima County project sponsor.&nbsp;
Section 408 to be submitted by Pima County project sponsor.&nbsp;
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in coordination with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), propose to develop a commuter rail extension project from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH.&nbsp; The Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor) Project would extend the existing MBTA passenger rail service approximately 30 miles northward from Lowell, MA to Nashua and Manchester, NH using approximately 9 miles of existing MBTA railway and approximately 21 miles of existing Pan Am Railways’ New Hampshire Main Line railway. The project proposes rail corridor infrastructure upgrades along 30 miles of railway, the construction of four new commuter rail stations in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Bedford, and Downtown Manchester, and one layover facility Manchester.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in coordination with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), propose to develop a commuter rail extension project from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH.&nbsp; The Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor) Project would extend the existing MBTA passenger rail service approximately 30 miles northward from Lowell, MA to Nashua and Manchester, NH using approximately 9 miles of existing MBTA railway and approximately 21 miles of existing Pan Am Railways’ New Hampshire Main Line railway. The project proposes rail corridor infrastructure upgrades along 30 miles of railway, the construction of four new commuter rail stations in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Bedford, and Downtown Manchester, and one layover facility Manchester.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in coordination with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), propose to develop a commuter rail extension project from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH.&nbsp; The Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor) Project would extend the existing MBTA passenger rail service approximately 30 miles northward from Lowell, MA to Nashua and Manchester, NH using approximately 9 miles of existing MBTA railway and approximately 21 miles of existing Pan Am Railways’ New Hampshire Main Line railway. The project proposes rail corridor infrastructure upgrades along 30 miles of railway, the construction of four new commuter rail stations in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Bedford, and Downtown Manchester, and one layover facility Manchester.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in coordination with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), propose to develop a commuter rail extension project from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH.&nbsp; The Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor) Project would extend the existing MBTA passenger rail service approximately 30 miles northward from Lowell, MA to Nashua and Manchester, NH using approximately 9 miles of existing MBTA railway and approximately 21 miles of existing Pan Am Railways’ New Hampshire Main Line railway. The project proposes rail corridor infrastructure upgrades along 30 miles of railway, the construction of four new commuter rail stations in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Bedford, and Downtown Manchester, and one layover facility Manchester.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in coordination with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), propose to develop a commuter rail extension project from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH.&nbsp; The Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor) Project would extend the existing MBTA passenger rail service approximately 30 miles northward from Lowell, MA to Nashua and Manchester, NH using approximately 9 miles of existing MBTA railway and approximately 21 miles of existing Pan Am Railways’ New Hampshire Main Line railway. The project proposes rail corridor infrastructure upgrades along 30 miles of railway, the construction of four new commuter rail stations in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Bedford, and Downtown Manchester, and one layover facility Manchester.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in coordination with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), propose to develop a commuter rail extension project from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH.&nbsp; The Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor) Project would extend the existing MBTA passenger rail service approximately 30 miles northward from Lowell, MA to Nashua and Manchester, NH using approximately 9 miles of existing MBTA railway and approximately 21 miles of existing Pan Am Railways’ New Hampshire Main Line railway. The project proposes rail corridor infrastructure upgrades along 30 miles of railway, the construction of four new commuter rail stations in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Bedford, and Downtown Manchester, and one layover facility Manchester.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in coordination with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), propose to develop a commuter rail extension project from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH.&nbsp; The Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor) Project would extend the existing MBTA passenger rail service approximately 30 miles northward from Lowell, MA to Nashua and Manchester, NH using approximately 9 miles of existing MBTA railway and approximately 21 miles of existing Pan Am Railways’ New Hampshire Main Line railway. The project proposes rail corridor infrastructure upgrades along 30 miles of railway, the construction of four new commuter rail stations in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Bedford, and Downtown Manchester, and one layover facility Manchester.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), in coordination with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), propose to develop a commuter rail extension project from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH.&nbsp; The Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor) Project would extend the existing MBTA passenger rail service approximately 30 miles northward from Lowell, MA to Nashua and Manchester, NH using approximately 9 miles of existing MBTA railway and approximately 21 miles of existing Pan Am Railways’ New Hampshire Main Line railway. The project proposes rail corridor infrastructure upgrades along 30 miles of railway, the construction of four new commuter rail stations in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Bedford, and Downtown Manchester, and one layover facility Manchester.
404 Nationwide Verification
404 Nationwide Verification
404 Nationwide Verification
404 Nationwide Verification
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate a potential new interchange at I-15 and 700 South to improve regional mobility in the area.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate a potential new interchange at I-15 and 700 South to improve regional mobility in the area.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate a potential new interchange at I-15 and 700 South to improve regional mobility in the area.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate a potential new interchange at I-15 and 700 South to improve regional mobility in the area.
UDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate a potential new interchange at I-15 and 700 South to improve regional mobility in the area.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
As part of its mission to improve quality of life through transportation, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement along the I‑15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake City.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Now that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has constructed Midvalley Highway (State Route 179) to provide a new connection from Interstate 80 (I-80) to S.R. 138, UDOT is conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate potential alternatives and determine the best alignment to connect Midvalley Highway from S.R. 138 to S.R. 36.
Now that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has constructed Midvalley Highway (State Route 179) to provide a new connection from Interstate 80 (I-80) to S.R. 138, UDOT is conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate potential alternatives and determine the best alignment to connect Midvalley Highway from S.R. 138 to S.R. 36.
Now that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has constructed Midvalley Highway (State Route 179) to provide a new connection from Interstate 80 (I-80) to S.R. 138, UDOT is conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate potential alternatives and determine the best alignment to connect Midvalley Highway from S.R. 138 to S.R. 36.
Now that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has constructed Midvalley Highway (State Route 179) to provide a new connection from Interstate 80 (I-80) to S.R. 138, UDOT is conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate potential alternatives and determine the best alignment to connect Midvalley Highway from S.R. 138 to S.R. 36.
Now that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has constructed Midvalley Highway (State Route 179) to provide a new connection from Interstate 80 (I-80) to S.R. 138, UDOT is conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate potential alternatives and determine the best alignment to connect Midvalley Highway from S.R. 138 to S.R. 36.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
Section 106 consultation for project impacts.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with NYSDOT, prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project to the human and natural environment.

The Draft EA is available for public review and comment between May 9, and June 15, 2022. NYSDOT will hold a virtual NEPA public information meeting on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, from 6 pm until 8 pm EST. NYSDOT will also hold an in-person NEPA public information meeting at the Palace Theater (19 Clinton Avenue, Albany, NY 12207) on Wednesday, June 1, 2022, at 6 pm EST.&nbsp;
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with NYSDOT, prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project to the human and natural environment.

The Draft EA is available for public review and comment between May 9, and June 15, 2022. NYSDOT will hold a virtual NEPA public information meeting on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, from 6 pm until 8 pm EST. NYSDOT will also hold an in-person NEPA public information meeting at the Palace Theater (19 Clinton Avenue, Albany, NY 12207) on Wednesday, June 1, 2022, at 6 pm EST.&nbsp;
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with NYSDOT, prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project to the human and natural environment.

The Draft EA is available for public review and comment between May 9, and June 15, 2022. NYSDOT will hold a virtual NEPA public information meeting on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, from 6 pm until 8 pm EST. NYSDOT will also hold an in-person NEPA public information meeting at the Palace Theater (19 Clinton Avenue, Albany, NY 12207) on Wednesday, June 1, 2022, at 6 pm EST.&nbsp;
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with NYSDOT, prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project to the human and natural environment.

The Draft EA is available for public review and comment between May 9, and June 15, 2022. NYSDOT will hold a virtual NEPA public information meeting on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, from 6 pm until 8 pm EST. NYSDOT will also hold an in-person NEPA public information meeting at the Palace Theater (19 Clinton Avenue, Albany, NY 12207) on Wednesday, June 1, 2022, at 6 pm EST.&nbsp;
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with NYSDOT, prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project to the human and natural environment.

The Draft EA is available for public review and comment between May 9, and June 15, 2022. NYSDOT will hold a virtual NEPA public information meeting on Tuesday, May 31, 2022, from 6 pm until 8 pm EST. NYSDOT will also hold an in-person NEPA public information meeting at the Palace Theater (19 Clinton Avenue, Albany, NY 12207) on Wednesday, June 1, 2022, at 6 pm EST.&nbsp;
FRA is preparing an Environmental Assessment in accordance with NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Assessment in accordance with NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Assessment in accordance with NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Assessment in accordance with NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.
FRA is preparing an Environmental Assessment in accordance with NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations.